Table of Contents

Date

06 Jul 2017

Agenda

New action items

Standing action items

• Capture API use cases relevant to your organization
• Identify high-priority use cases in Confluence or to Former user (Deleted)
• Tell Former user (Deleted) about API errors & exceptions that need work

Actions items from previous meetings

Language Bindings

• Former user (Deleted): create API definitions based on SJC abstracted binding layer and generate a YAML Swagger specification from it
• Former user (Deleted): Look into how to enable limited cross-pod capabilities on the Foundation's test pod and others to make integration testing possible.
• Former user (Deleted), Former user (Deleted), Matt Joyce (Deactivated):
  
  • Schedule a call to discuss API binding consistency. Coordinate with Former user (Deleted) and Dan Nathanson (Deactivated).
  • Start a list of the basic functionality bindings should have test for before being considered active. (Possibly Former user (Deleted) too.)
  • Draft list of API endpoints that should be supported by active language bindings.

Use Cases

• Former user (Deleted): review API use cases with LLC team before the next meeting to determine/document whether they're supported by the existing API.
• Former user (Deleted): work with Johan Sandersson to create detailed use cases to define the capabilities that bots should have access to
• All: review the job story format and consider whether to use this format for use cases.

Consuming the Symphony API

• All: If you are aware of an open source project that provides a good API for creating bots, tell Former user (Deleted).
• Former user (Deleted): Talk to Former user (Deleted) about bot deployment work, possibly contributing to Foundation.

Attendees

Meeting notes

• review of actions items. 
  
  • paul indicated that work is in progress to standup cross-pod capabilities for integration testing. ETA is Aug/Sept.  Agreed to close action item
  • matt confirmed that he and frank discussed consistency between api and language bindings. specifically they discussed the java client and agreed that swagger spec (via code-gen) is the most appropriate approach for any other language bindings. Agreed to close action item. 
• paul, johan and leslie gave a quick recap of june 23 members meeting. very noticeable increase from first member meeting in terms of attendance and projects.  
  • attendees to WG breakout was a different representation of those attending bi-weekly calls. this is good - to give more people awareness fo the WG. 
  • some good discussion on OBO use-case (most felt that the detail and scope of the face-to-face discussion would not have been possible over phone)
• anthony introduced the BNY Mellon API Design Guidelines on the WG wiki as a working document. 
  • action for next meeting (20 July) - attendees to review guidelines in advance and come with questions and suggestions on areas to focus on wrt Symphony API
  • action for next meeting (20 July) - BNYM (suggest Peter Leong) to give a summary of how the Symphony API conforms to the BNY Mellon guidelines. 
  • one area to look at is how swagger specs are being updated, for example there is an upcoming update to define how to manage events and streams. how does the WG incorporate to any guidelines and best practices
• johan gave update on work to define (and add) use-cases. there was some discussion at the members meeting, generally good feedback and endorsement. this is work that will be ongoing and reported as a standing action item. 
• johan wanted to see how the WG can recruit more participants in finishing the .NET binding of the API. FactSet started this, and is planning to continue. But more help is welcome. 
• discussion on what language bindings are most popular, useful and hence need more collaborative effort. 
  • java has largest usage - expected due to enterprise 'comfort' .. but will this change over time? for example as LLC implements node-base engine, or as enterprises deploy javascript/web based clients. 
  • some discussion about demarcation of roles between platform (LLC) and community (Foundation) on REST endpoint and language bindings, esp as it pertains to development, integration testing, compatability etc.  Might this come up at 12-July BOD meeting? 
•