SE401:Group58:Notices Log

From Marks Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Main Menu Work Plan Progress Research Backlog Functional Backlog
Meeting Minutes Supervisor Meeting Minutes Sprint Log Conference Poster


Notices History

08/26

  • Fixed a critical error induced in Revision 61+ - Had to rollback/rename/rework from previous working project (Weng Hao)

07/23

  • Sprint 2 Revised - Reprioritised based on Jesse's comments

07/14

  • Sprint 1 Complete

07/07

  • Sprint Log Created

06/22

  • Cross-domain issues and XAP package problems resolved.

06/20

  • WSDL now responds again.
  • You may be able to access TCS.

06/10

  • Notices and personal messages will now be separated, just to avoid any confusion.
  • There will be no staff meeting on Wednesday 7.
  • Next meeting with Professor (To be confirmed) may be held after 28th June.

[4/08]

  • [Llyle] In regards to the post [29/7].
    • I had to rework the code that was implemented due to all user interface specific controls being passed to the presenter. This violates the property "All UI development should follow the MVP pattern for ease of testing"as described by Scott Hanselman.
    • When we discussed the tasks for the sprint during the requirements meeting one issue that was stressed with this task was Testing. The implementation you generated is not unit testable and thus I attempted to help you (and thus us) out by making the components loosely connected. If you followed the 'test-first' methodology as was required then I would not have needed to waste time reworking the code.
    • Today I restored the code and it contains no bugs and only contains the limitation I explicitly discussed with you which is: "The mouse snaps to the (0,0) location of the pip".
    • In regards to "PLEASE make sure you retain the existing functionality as well": The code generated was of better quality and testable, and in the face of this 'existing functionality' is not the asset at stake. There needs to be tests around code that is not trivial and this functionality is not trivial.
    • I am not attached to the code written and as long as at the end of the sprint the code you write work and is under test then the task is complete.

[29/7]

  • [Weng Hao] Hi Llyle, Thank you for refactoring my code to proper MVP format. But please, if you do refactor, PLEASE make sure you retain the existing functionality as well. You've removed my code completely and the logic is completely wrong now. I appreciate your help, but if we do alter any part of the code - we need to make sure all working functionality is preserved.

[21/7]

  • [Llyle] I've constructed and uploaded a sprint 2 plan which is the template for sprint 2 unless changes are warranted by the client.

[16/07]

  • [Llyle] I've typed and uploaded the results from the Sprint 1 Retrospective and the Sprint 1 Outcome/Results which are located in the sprint log. Today is the cut-off date for TANDBERG to give input. If Tandberg gives feedback on the sprint 1 outcome and outlines the contents for the second sprint then we focus Sprint 2 on the contents TANDBERG outline, otherwise we will use our judgement and make an educated guess at what TANDBERG would have wanted in Sprint 2 based on the requirements meeting held earlier this year and the catchup meeting held earlier this month.

[14/07]

  • [Llyle] We need to meet with TandBerg to discus the contents of the second sprint. (What they wish us to focus on) Also, next sprint starts Wednesday [17/7].

[07/07]

  • [Llyle] Created the sprint log. Added Sprint 1. Populated the page with sprint planning from last Wednesday.

[06/23]

  • [Llyle] After some introspection in regards to our project I have come to believe:
    • Our research backlog has some unneccessary research topics as MSDN covers a large majority of the Silverlight specific topics already. Perhaps it would be more useful to simply reference useful resources where appropriate.
    • We need to address the following as a team:
      • Should we use WCF or ASP.NET Services, or both.
      • What intensity of testing does the client (Tandberg) want (thus, where is the focus).
      • What types of testing does the client want (if not indifferent):
        • Type: Manual testing Views (In the Silverlight Application)
        • Type: Automated testing Views (In the Silverlight Application)
        • Type: Mock and/or Unit testing Presenters (In the Silverlight Application)
        • Type: Mock and/or Unit testing DAL (Our Data Access Layer)
        • Type: Mock and/or Unit testing TCS (Tandberg Content Server)

[06/22]

  • [Llyle] Have successfully created a Solution which involves a Silverlight Project, which is in a MVP pattern, a ASP.NET Web Site project (to host the Silverlight controls), a WCF Service and a ASP.Net Service. Useful information was successfully pulled from both services (the DAL) using a presenter (located in the Silverlight Project) on my home machine - cross-domain problems overcome with a clientaccesspolicy.xml file located in the ASP.NET Web Site root (which the http-request-headers attribute set to '*' due to the change of SL2B2 from SL2B1 - they are more stringent on cross-domain access). I have replicated this breakthrough twice over. Once exams finish I'll replicate this onto the university computers.

[06/20]

  • [Weng Hao] I've been having problems trying to use the VideoSurface project. There seems to be a 404 error, but I don't know where to look for it. I've tried conforming the 2270 ports that hosted the test project to 1377 (A random port, which I forgot to check where it led to..), but it didn't work.
    I also tried using your program (ThingTHatWorks solution), but your one didn't connect at all - I checked this by seeing the boolean it returned when localproxy.state==whatever.Opened(), and it returned false - i.e. Your thing somehow doesn't get called at all.

But I've seen your result for it return 0 before, so I'm not sure. Did you remember what changes you've made to that program when we were frantically trying to get TCS to communicate?

[06/10]

  • [Llyle] Work log has been updated with the work that will be undertaken starting Wednesday [06/11]. I've adding mocking as a testing requirement for when presenter testing, but I think it might be unreasonable since you'd be into studying hard for the exams, but after the exams its a must. Still do the unit testing of presenter however - its very important. I'm pretty new to using Rhino Mocks but it is very powerful and will be invaluable as our project explodes in size. (cant wait)

[06/02]

  • [Llyle] Progress is slightly stunned due to extremely heavy workloads.
  • [Llyle] On Wednesday I managed to get an example going where a Silverlight Application communicates with a WCF Web Service - took alot of effort so I documented the process in a document which will be added to this wiki and the research vault as soon as time is allowing.
  • [Llyle] On Friday I managed to get the Wednesday application to communicate with the TANDBERG content server via SOAP. The example does not exploit username/password enabled calls and this needs to be figured out soon. The calls being made are done as 'guest'/default and the call made is GetConferenceCount. Find the application under the shared repository.

[05/18]

  • [Llyle] Added a super useful tutorial regarding SOAPing since we now have discovered our content server is communicating with firefox (but not IE)! (Thank you Weng Hao)
  • [Weng Hao] Supervisor Meetings: 4/21, 4/30, 5/7, and 5/14 are now available.
  • [Weng Hao] Supervisor Meetings have been added to menu for quick reference.

[05/X]

[3/5/08]

  • [Weng Hao] I've finished splitting up my video conferencing document for easier reference of resources. It's properly split up into 3 documents: Limitations, Typical Equipment Used, and Standard Procedures and Protocols.
    • Majority of material is in bullet point form - Since there was quite alot of information, I thought it would help for picking out bits and pieces of whatever you'd like to add.
    • Sorry about it, I kinda regret it now :S But I think most of it can be understandable, hopefully - You may like to email me if you want clarification.
    • I've added proper reference links, so feel free to copy the links directly and make sure you number them accordingly based on your references.
    • NOTE: Please also paraphrase anything and everything you see in those documents. Parts of it had been left untouched, while others have been paraphrased abit. I always had the fear that we would paraphrase the paraphrased material... Which would end up looking like the original :( But, I guess it would be unlikely though.
  • [Weng Hao] Updated my sections for the Research Backlog.
    • Sorry for the delay... I'm not used to timing myself when I research and write up :S I had times for the video conferencing material but it's been so long that I've lost the file, so I had to put estimations for the 3 files- Though part of it was updated recently, so I've added the durations for them on top of the estimations.
  • [Weng Hao] I've added few topics to the research backlog. Also note that I changed the priority of the alternatives one, since TANDBERG mentioned they weren't too interested in it. But it's still at 'High' since it's best for us to discuss about it in our reports.
  • [Llyle] There is an inappropriate use of references on the research paper "Video Conferencing". Please fix this. For help refer to: "How to write references" article
  • [Llyle] There seems to be concern over paraphrasing, not that there should be... My research topics have all been proper research papers (Intro, Body, Conclusion, References), where the body is not in bulleted form. To ensure consistency with the other "research papers" all new research papers will now be of the form: Into, Body Conclusions, where the body is bulleted form.
  • [Weng Hao] If you are referring to the First Video Conferencing paper (Original), you should already know that it's redundant - The papers have already been referenced using the http://www.library.auckland.ac.nz/instruct/ref/uoaeng.htm system.
    • Because of the bullet-point format in these documents, there's no reason use the bracket system - It's too messy. Instead, [ONLY for these 3 documents...] I've categorised them by their topics and references.
    • All my other documents follow standard referencing anyway.
  • [Weng Hao] I understand that the first three aren't in the standard research paper format - This had been intentional, due to the large amount of technical content through the papers.
    • All other research papers are in Intro/Body/Conclusion forms anyway.
    • I've also minimised my usage of bullet points where possible. Bodies should no longer have bullet points (My mistake), but only where necessary to outline technical specifications such as file formats, etc.
  • [Llyle] I don't mind either way. Just for consistency. The proper research paper way makes it easy to skim read due to the conclusion and is meatier in the body but then requires considerable paraphrasing. The second research paper way (the bulleted one) is fine too as it makes it very easy to construct own work from the data provided but requires effort to try and understand the meaning behind some bullets. It would just be preferable to have all research papers in the same style. My first thoughts were the first option, but it's up to you. We just need to pick one and stick with it :)
  • [Weng Hao] Let's stick with the first option then, I hate understanding under pressure :P
    • The TANDBERG system document is now available though.
  • [Llyle] Very cool. Initial Architectural Envisioning documentation is now uploaded to research vault. Enjoy :P

[1/5/08]

  • Added meeting minutes with Professor Hosking (Sorry, I've forgotten to write up this meeting for a long while..) -- Weng Hao
  • I've emailed Professor Grundy about the Tandberg content server, and also compiled information on both the content server and the endpoint (IP, pass, users, etc) in that email which I've forwarded - This is so that we'll be able to make quick references to it. Probably not safe to put all that information up here. -- Weng Hao
  • Managed to figure out what was wrong with the player. -- Weng Hao
    • Player works fine now -- Weng Hao
    • Found out that the MediaElement #1001 error was due to Silverlight not allowed to map to your computer resources - I guess this is a good thing for privacy and all. -- Weng Hao
  • Found solution to debugging issue in Silverlight 2: Debugging Solution -- Weng Hao
  • I'm not sure if this one's useful but... Debugging Web Services Just in case we'll need it later -- Weng Hao
  • Tonight was too short for me to dive into a research topic. Instead I played a bit with Silverlight's media player. Got a few basics working: Playing media, handling media events, throwing browser message boxes (for debugging purposes) and so on. -- Llyle


[30/4/08]

  • I've pushed out the first iteration since we haven't had our first client meeting and struggling to get the Tandberg example working 'cause of proxy/content issues -- Llyle
  • I just extracted the initial product/feature/functional backlog from my most recent research paper and populated the functional backlog page with it -- Llyle
  • I've created and added the Requirements Envisioning (refer to Process document I produced) research document to the research vault. -- Llyle
  • I've modified the research backlog to reflect what I have done/researched and made minor changes -- Llyle
  • Added a very useful link to the Resources section on this page under links. -- Llyle

[24/4/08]

  • Action List has been updated. -- Llyle

[22/4/08]

  • Added 21/04/08 Supervisor Meeting Minutes -- Weng Hao
  • Jesse's content viewer application has been unblocked and received successfully -- Weng Hao

[21/4/08]

  • I've added another research topic to my list, but I don't think I'd be able to complete it due to time and resource constraints from other courses. I don't expect you to pick up anything for research at all since we're both very busy this week :) We'll focus on getting the player ready this week if possible for now -- Weng Hao

[18/4/08]

  • SVN has been setup for us. Research Repo now contains our Process information. Added a research document. -- Llyle
  • Uploaded research document to Sky Drive -- Weng Hao
  • Added useful link to Silverlight Video Tutorials -- Weng Hao

[15/4/08]

  • I've set all Plug-in Specific research from 'Aborted' state to 'Not Selected' state as Grundy advised during our supervisor meeting. -- Llyle
  • Have removed comments from research backlog regarding issues that Plug-in specific topics are completely reliant on completion of the Silverlight research. This is simply not true. The score of the Plug-in Specific research is a high level comparison. The Silverlight Specific research requires 'Investigation' and as such is a detailed exploration of what Silverlight brings to the table. -- Llyle
  • I have swapped "Plug-in Technologies Support for Integration with Existing (mainstream) Technologies" for "Investigate Communication Support by the Silverlight Plug-in" due to the recent completion of research backlog prioritisation the second research topic takes precedence over the first. -- Llyle
  • I've cleaned up our wiki front page due to information explosion.
    • Meeting Times are now available under the Meeting Times link under Meetings. -- Llyle
    • Our 'Notice Board' only consisted of 'Most Recent Notices'. So now all recent notices fall under 'Most Recent Notices' and the old ones are kept in the Notice History in an attempt to stick to good wiki-ing practice. -- Llyle
    • Placed a link to our Privatised Project Vault/Store under the links section -- Llyle


[14/4/08]

  • All Research Backlog topics prioritised. We can now officially identify the topics desiring the imminent attention in regards to research for the first iteration starting today. -- Llyle
  • Dialogue needs to be exchanged today in regards to questions raised on [12/4/08] notices. -- Llyle

[12/4/08]

  • Requirements Meeting with Tandberg was a success. -- Llyle
  • Weng Hao, please do your prioritisations before the end of this weekend. -- Llyle
  • Added April 11 Meeting to Minutes -- Weng Hao
      • Added Content Server Tutorial -- Weng Hao
  • Moved April 11 Meeting Agenda into April 11 Minutes -- Weng Hao
  • Updated remaining prioritisation topics in Research Backlog -- Weng Hao
  • Llyle:
    • Um.... What am I s'pose to do with prioritising topics? -- Weng Hao
      • Every topic in my section is redundant -- Weng Hao
    • For now, I'm just gonna prioritise and put it all in red -- Weng Hao
      • This information should be removed from our backlog -- Weng Hao
    • ...And I needn't be told twice about the prioritisations, was finishing up on April 11 Minutes.. :) -- Weng Hao
      • ..I had to redo minutes twice -- Weng Hao

[9/4/08]

  • We need to create a Protocols and Best Practice section regarding Coding, Editing and the like. -- Llyle
  • All work done should be added to the work log so that we can check what others have done, which would keep both of us 'in the know' -- Llyle
  • Prioritisations is URGENT. You should not be chosing research topics until ALL topics have been prioritised. This is part of the process of identifying those topics most important. The process also requires that you MUST choose higher priority topics before lower priority topics such that 'Show Stoppers', for example, are not hampering the progress of other research. Weng Hao - you might need to reconsidering picking a 'High' or 'Critical' topic over the 'Medium' topic that you have, and if you consider it more important then re-prioritise it. -- Llyle
Retrieved from ‘https://wiki.kram.nz/index.php?title=SE401:Group58:Notices_Log&oldid=11562’