Table of Contents

Date

13 Dec 2017

Action items

Add new action items here.

Meeting notes

NK: If we just had documentation of the URIs to call to bring a chat into focus and resolve a UserID to a stream, we might not need this.

BI: It would help me if you could do a quick workflow diagram to clarify how this would work.

NK: Sure, and I think I may want to revise this proposal based on some newer information I’ve got from Lynn. What’s happening here is that the Symphony app would pass this function to the wrapper giving it access to the callback function. The wrapper would use the function when it wanted to restore chat state or respond to a notification of a chat being clicked on, initiate a chat, etc. The idea is that the Symphony app knows the state of the chats and can call the appropriate function on the wrapper side to bring the right window into focus. I’d be really interested in JC’s perspective – I think some of these things are better handled through URI interfaces, which would require an expansion of this WG’s remit.

JC: It sounds logical from my perspective. It doesn’t seem like it would require expanding the charter, we just need to think carefully about how that functionality is constructed.

NK: I’m just looking for documentation etc.

JC: We have a number of use cases where we’re doing this internally, so what you’re saying is if we documented this so we’re all doing it the same way, third party apps would have the same stable access to this functionality.

NK: Exactly. Johan, is this of interest to FactSet?

JS: Yes, this would be a much more useful way to open a chat than the Symphony URI.

NK: What about the timeframe for window.open()?

LN: That’s in progress, so that would be part of release 50. Let me check on the schedule.

NK: It would be great if the group could be updated on that progress.

AW: Would it be possible for Symphony LLC to report in a standardized way anticipated changes to the APIs?

LM: We’ve talked about this before – that’s what we’re doing in these conversations.

NK: I’d love to see something more in the middle, maybe on the wiki, where we can see tentative schedules posted proactively, even if it’s just available to WG members.

LM: We’ll take it under advisement but for now this is the process we have.

AW: Lynn, do you have any information about this issue regarding discrepancies in message counts between the Symphony app and third-party apps?

LN: There’s an internal ticket to investigate this.  Let me see if I can bring it up.

AW: Lawrence, there’s an action here about the security of the save & restore context proposal. Is that something you’ve looked at?

LM: We haven’t seen a detailed proposal yet, so no.

AW: Ok. Lynn, once you find that ticket, if you could send a quick update to the mailing list?

LN: Sure.

Agenda

Attendees