Blog Ideas/Edgent Use Cases

[William Marshall]

Hi All,

I'm writing a series of articles for the Edgent blog. The goal is to have
one, or several, use cases to be walked through step-by-step. Edgent's
strength is in reducing the amount of streaming data sent over a network,
so my current blog idea is to walk through a "smart microphone" example
where a Raspberry Pi only transmits sound if the decibel level is above a
threshold.

But that's just one idea.

I want to invite the Edgent community to comment on possible Edgent use
cases. Hopefully, these could be used as the basis for future articles/blog
posts, and can serve as a way of drawing in new developers to the project.

How can Edgent be used?

-Will

Re: [DRAFT] What the new Status Pages potentially look like

[Katherine Marsden]

If you are making edits, can you take me off as mentor? I am so happy to see 
the recent activity on the Edgent list. Looks like you folks are doing great!

Thanks

Katherine

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 10:29 AM, John D. Ament  wrote:
> 
> IF those are the dates from your old status file then you're good.  If your
> 1.0.0 had no licensing issues that would be correct.
> 
> You can update the file.
> 
>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:38 AM Dale LaBossiere  wrote:
>> 
>> John, can you confirm appropriate values for Edgent in order to clear up
>> all the red under “Licensing”?
>> 
>> From http://incubator.apache.org/projects/edgent.html these seem to be
>> the appropriate values (from that copyrights section as well as 1.0.0
>> release date of 2016-12-15):
>> 
>> :sga:2016-03-11
>> :asfCopyright:2016-12-15
>> :distributionRights:2016-12-15
>> 
>> Next question: how to update the info?  If it’s “a mentor must do it”, can
>> you please handle it :-)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> — Dale
>> 
>> 

Re: [DRAFT] What the new Status Pages potentially look like

[John D. Ament]

IF those are the dates from your old status file then you're good.  If your
1.0.0 had no licensing issues that would be correct.

You can update the file.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 11:38 AM Dale LaBossiere  wrote:

> John, can you confirm appropriate values for Edgent in order to clear up
> all the red under “Licensing”?
>
> From http://incubator.apache.org/projects/edgent.html these seem to be
> the appropriate values (from that copyrights section as well as 1.0.0
> release date of 2016-12-15):
>
> :sga:2016-03-11
> :asfCopyright:2016-12-15
> :distributionRights:2016-12-15
>
> Next question: how to update the info?  If it’s “a mentor must do it”, can
> you please handle it :-)
>
> Thanks,
> — Dale
>
>

Re: Understanding the snapshot and release process

[Dale LaBossiere]

Yup, just noticed it. Looking good!

> On Jun 14, 2017, at 11:36 AM, Christofer Dutz  
> wrote:
> 
> Ok, so I just pushed a major update.
> 
> On my machine with these changes both the java7 and java8 builds seem to be 
> working. In the next few days I’ll probably play around with some of the 
> excluded modules and see if we can include them in the java7 build. Right 
> now, it sort of looks as if they were excluded simply because they didn’t 
> immediately work. So I’ll go through them and try to find out which ones we 
> can add and write down why some cant (This information seems to be missing at 
> the moment)
I suggest deferring the “add more to java7” effort until everything else needed 
to reach the state of being able to develop and make a release with the new 
machinery is done.  Maybe deferring until after actually making a release with 
the new machinery - IMO we should do one asap.

> Another thing I did, was to add the RAT plugin, go through the exclusions and 
> clean up the exclusions. Some were excluding stuff that shouldn’t be excluded 
> and it reported quite a hand full of files without ASF headers. I added them 
> so please have a look if this was ok.
LGTM

> 
> The Eclipse support is also on my list (even if I have to admit that I always 
> hate having to open that IDE ;-) )
:-) the sooner the better so that more folks can pull in the PR to experiment.

Thanks!
— Dale

Re: [DRAFT] What the new Status Pages potentially look like

[Dale LaBossiere]

John, can you confirm appropriate values for Edgent in order to clear up all 
the red under “Licensing”?

From http://incubator.apache.org/projects/edgent.html these seem to be the 
appropriate values (from that copyrights section as well as 1.0.0 release date 
of 2016-12-15):

:sga:2016-03-11
:asfCopyright:2016-12-15
:distributionRights:2016-12-15

Next question: how to update the info?  If it’s “a mentor must do it”, can you 
please handle it :-)

Thanks,
— Dale

Re: Understanding the snapshot and release process

[Christofer Dutz]

Ok, so I just pushed a major update.

On my machine with these changes both the java7 and java8 builds seem to be 
working. In the next few days I’ll probably play around with some of the 
excluded modules and see if we can include them in the java7 build. Right now, 
it sort of looks as if they were excluded simply because they didn’t 
immediately work. So I’ll go through them and try to find out which ones we can 
add and write down why some cant (This information seems to be missing at the 
moment)

Another thing I did, was to add the RAT plugin, go through the exclusions and 
clean up the exclusions. Some were excluding stuff that shouldn’t be excluded 
and it reported quite a hand full of files without ASF headers. I added them so 
please have a look if this was ok.

The Eclipse support is also on my list (even if I have to admit that I always 
hate having to open that IDE ;-) )

Chris

Am 13.06.17, 17:45 schrieb "Dale LaBossiere" :


> On Jun 12, 2017, at 4:56 PM, Christofer Dutz  
wrote:
> ...
> In my opinion IDE settings shouldn’t be checked in and should rather be 
added to the gitignore list. Don’t know how often we had issues in Flex with 
checked in IDE settings :-(
Agreed, with maven projects/pom’s in place, the Eclipse IDE 
settings/.project/.classpath would be removed from the repo.

>  
> The warnings are related to the fact that all Apache Maven configurations 
have the “Apache root pom” as top-most parent. A lot Some things are configured 
there. However I’m using different versions of some plugins and re-defining 
them in the edgent-parent. That’s what the first block of warnings are about.
Since the overrides are intentional, can you add the “annotations” to 
eliminate the warnings?  (and maybe a comment as to why a different version is 
being selected?) 
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/30782453/maven-suppress-overriding-managed-version-warning-in-eclipse
 


>  
> The rest of the blocks are because in order to work correctly the e2m 
plugin has built-in configurations on what to do for which default maven 
plugin. This is how Eclipse knows when to copy resources, compile classes and 
eventually even generate code. However per default not all plugins are handled 
by the m2e plugin. That’s what the second block is about. There is a way to get 
rid of them and eventually even tell Eclipse what to do, but this would need 
some fine tuning. I would like to address that as soon as we’re finished. 
Otherwise I would probably have to re-configure that over and over again. Mabe 
it would be good to tell Eclipse to ignore the plugins it doesn’t know so the 
errors go away and then to fine tune them afterwards.
Dealing with the warnings later seems OK.  Can you make the change to 
eliminate the errors now?  You probably know what needs to be done but fwiw 
here’s what Eclipse quick-fix added:
@dales-mbp:1049> diff test/fvtiot/pom.xml{,.sav}
62,96d61
< 
<   
<   
<   
<   org.eclipse.m2e
<   lifecycle-mapping
<   1.0.0
<   
<   
<   
<   
<   

<   
<   
org.apache.maven.plugins
<   
<   
<   
maven-dependency-plugin
<   

<   

<   
[3.0.1,)
<   

<   
<   
copy
<   
<   

<   
<   

<   
<   
<   
<   
<   
<   
<   
< 
@dales-mbp:1050> 

Thanks,
— Dale