Versions Compared

Old Version 3

changes.mady.by.user Rob Underwood (Deactivated)

Saved on

compared with

New Version 4

changes.mady.by.user Tosha Ellison

Saved on

Key

  • This line was added.
  • This line was removed.
  • Formatting was changed.

Date

Attendees

Goals

  • reach agreement on initial standards to Ratify

...

(In the task report select the meetings notes from the LAST meeting in the 'Space(s) and page(s)' field to auto-populate this table– remove this note before publishing)

Task report
labelsfdc3_api_working_group

...

TimeItemWhoNotes
5minintro - roll callgroupensure someone can minute and record the meeting - Tosha Ellison
20 minproposal for alternate API specLeslie Spiro

Leslie Spiro from Tick42 presented an alternate proposal (DesktopAgentimpl.ts). Some context is that Tick42 have been working with the AppDirectory, API and Context Data WGs and as a team are trying to understand how they will do their implementation. This led them to produce an alternate API. Contact Leslie for more information.

Typescript that Leslie walked through:Image Added

A few points from the presentation/discussion:

  • This proposal provides more granularity around opening a new application or raising an intent to find a specific instance of an application that may already be open 
  • Covers implementation for a multi-platform agent
  • What is a platform (something like an inhouse container –> e.g., Tick42, OpenFin, Eikon, etc.) and is it the same as desktop agent?
  • The group requested more time to review and discuss offline, specifically to understand the real or perceived deficiencies of the existing spec and this proposal addresses those. Gaps mentioned include 1) missing the concept of application vs application instance and 2) the way intents are defined does not provide enough exposure of functionality


There was continued discussion around what the first version should cover, e.g. how specific it should be in the first instance vs. what should be deferred to a subsequent version following experience and insight gained from initial use.

25 minreview current draft specNicholas Kolba

Aim is to determine if

we are

the WG is ready to bring to vote.

The group reviewed the remaining issues with the core one revolving around intents and the expected response. There was discussion around the expectation of what will happen once an intent is raised (e.g. immediate response or the potential waiting), including challenges dealing with UX and interoperability.

Some examples of points raised include:

  • Riko raised a concern with raiseIntentPrompt and implication that there is a user action
  • Colin agreed → what never seems to come up is context?
  • Nick asked a question about whether work around launchers was a center piece or whether it was more of an edge case.

The group did not reach consensus and questioned whether a larger sample size was necessary. The point was raised that it might be useful to see implementations and make decisions following that. This prompted consideration of moving to “validate” rather than “ratify” in the first instance and request people to implement what is in the spec in order to get real feedback.

The group agreed to use the mailing list to agree next steps as they were at an impasse and there were not enough people to make a decision.




 10minAOBgroup

Action items