	Weekly Chat Meeting #29: Tuesday 15th February 2000
	
Participating: Allan Hornstrup, Niels Joergen Westergaard, Juhani Huovelin,
	Carol Anne Oxborrow, Peter Kretschmar, Sami Maisala, Eero Esko,
	Petter Nikula

Subjects discussed: Stephane Paltani's proposals for Packet header data
		access API in DAL3JEMX
	Problems with fits extension access in RP1_3 for test data made with
		RP1_2
	Changes in component names to use underscores, small letters and 20
		character maximum.
	Helsinki's background data structure templates
	Teleconferencing for meetings involving Soern Brandt.
	
**** Logging Started : Tue Feb 15 09:32:29 MET 2000
<ponikula> Hi End
*** allan has set the topic: "Let s get started"
*** allan has set the topic: Let s get started
> Stefan can't be with us today, so let's get started END
<Peter> OK, I have to leave at 10:20 anyway, so I hope we make quick progress today. END
> Frist, what did we all think of the latest DAL3JEMX proposals from
> stephane? END
<Peter> Fine with me, even though he never discussed them with me before sending them to you :-) END
*** huovelin (~huovelin@taurus.astro.helsinki.fi) has joined channel #jemxadr
<huovelin> Hi there, folks ! END
<allan> Any negative comments ? END
<njw> I have no comments, I haven't used those structures END
<eesko> no END
> Stefan says he has no problems with the proposal in as much as he's
> never used the DAL3JEMX routines, and I'd say that's pretty much
> my view too: if it's easy with separate packet access functions
> then so be it. END
<Peter> From our work split it seems the only one affected are Nicolas Produit at ISDC and possibly you Carol Anne
<Peter> So since you don't mind, let's call them accepted END
> I basically like what he's suggesting because I no from experience
> that the different packet formats are a pain. So accepted it is END
<smaisala> Ok END
> Juhani, you've just joined, any comments? END
<ponikula> Ok End
<huovelin> Is this referring to CAO's first chat item ? END
> Yes END
<huovelin> Then, OK END
> Fine: next point: problems with RP1_3. The story so far: NJW and I
> have found that executables that work and are delivered under 
> RP1_2 don't work at all under RP1_3, something to do with accessing
> exetensions in the input group, especially inputs given using
> inDOLS and outDOLs. We've worked on this for some time and still
> not found the root of the problem. I've concluded that the problem
> arises because we're using test data that was created using RP1_2
> and these extensions are somehow incompatible with RP1_3. So what
> I have proposed, is that our nextdeliveries wait until we've got
> RP14 installed here and can run the testdata-making programs again
> with that RP, and presumably our executables will work again.
> Consequently all delivery activity here, including re-delivery of
> older executables found to fail with RP1_3, is halted pending the
> arrival of RP14. Just thought you should all know about this problem
> END
> Any comments? END
<allan> I agree to hold deliveries untill 1.4 is on the table. END
<Peter> Sounds like a good proposal to me. 
<Peter> Now that you say it I remember some problems of incorrectly set keywords by old 
<smaisala> Sounds reasonable to me END
<Peter> versions of the Common library. END
> If no more comments let's cut to the chase: new component names:
> first one comment: the figure never ever did show the real order
> in which things run, only what calls what in as close a chronological
> order as possible. Coul we all list the changes we'd like to see
> made to the names one at a time, starting with Peter? END
> Okay, peter's not with us apparently, so how about the helsinki group? END
<Peter> I thought I had written everything already
<Peter> TEST
> Okay, I'll try to incorporate everything in your email in a new
> draft, Peter. What about you others? ANy comments Helsinki? Does
<Peter> The others should take a look and see if they agree.
<Peter> END
> the current figure reflect anything like your current setup (I'm
> expecting the answer `no' here!) END
<Peter> Sorry, I seem to have some problems getting through ... END
> Could just be a slow line you've got today Peter, END
<allan> We read you loud and clear, I think. END
<smaisala> I checked your new names in overview. I think the names are OK, but
<smaisala> I guess you have old information in background handling. I will send you version today END
> Please send me the sort of email diagram Peter's just done so well
> (see his email) so that I can see how things should be arranged
> Sami. Then I'll make a new version of the diagram later today.
> Is that all comments NJW, Allan, other Finns? END
<huovelin> I think Sami got it all written, I have no other commments END
<njw> The diagram is OK on the side of my parts. END
> AOB: Next week I'll be sending you all a list of things you still
> need to deliver for ADD5.0: so be warned! END
> Any other AOB anyone? END
<smaisala> No comments END
<njw> Maybe Peter is calling for a new flow diagram that is more focussed on the sequential order ? END
<Peter> Yes I have something:
<allan> THere was a discussion about 
<allan> telecon - is that still an option? END
> Shall we try that next week? END
<huovelin> We are in the process of making a fancy vision of the BKG in the ADD END
> Sounds good Juhani, can you send me draft ASAP? END
<Peter> That brings me to my point:
<njw> I also have a question from Peter's email: is j_ima_mosaic only an ISDC responsibility or
<huovelin> I will be away probably ("skiing holiday "), so Sami will represent us ENF
<njw> did I at some time agree to make a temporary version ? END
<Peter> I need ASAP some templates for thos background data structures so I can discuss DAL3JEMX with Stephane END
> Those will have to come from Helsinki. Sami what about it? END
<Peter> To NJW: I do not remember what you promised, but a generic tool is definitely recognized as ISDC responsability. 
<Peter> But it surely won't be available in March. END
<smaisala> I have done almost all background templates, if you like I can send them to you right now ? END
> j_ima_mosaic, is as far as I remember our only contribution to
<Peter> To Sami: yes, do so! The earlier I see those the easier it is to discuss them. END
> the observational pipeline: so will allour observational part to
> be done by generic tools? END
> Please send me a copy of those templates for ADD5.0 Sami. THanks END
<smaisala> I will .. END
<Peter> To CAO: why not - it would save SDAST time and avoid diversification of similar tasks at ISDC. END
> 1) Thanks sami. 2) I'll take ima_mosaic out 3) I'
> ll try to arrange things more chronologically, as far as space
<smaisala> -. 
> will allow. 4) What about us trying a teleconference using phones
> next week: only soeren Brandt has actually shown interest in
<Peter> To 4) If you want, I don't mind the chat. END
> this option: what say you regular chatters? END
<allan> I like the chat more than telecon, but
> Me too END
<allan> if Sren should participate, we need to do it differently.
<ponikula> Same here END
<allan> On the other hand, we can reserve telecon to issues,
<Peter> Let's reserve this for an occasion were we need Sren's presence. END
<allan> where his presense is urgent. END
<allan> I see we agree. ..:-) END
> Good suggestion guys! Can you find out about the technicalities
<njw> I agree to Allan's proposal since we're reasonably haapy with the chat END
<huovelin> Besides, there is the physical meeting coming up (9th March) END
> Allan, and we'll try a teleconf one time between now and the physical
<allan> Yes, we are looking forward to seeing you here :-) END
> meeting, okay? END
<allan> OK END
> Well that's everything: let's see if we can close this meeting in
> under 45 minutes! You'll be hearing from me about the new diagram:
> so long as I here from Helsinki SOON END
<huovelin> OK, bye END
> Bye, have a productive week everyone! END
*** ponikula has left channel #jemxadr : (Bye everybody END)
<Peter> Same to you! END
*** Signoff: huovelin ()
*** Signoff: Peter (EOF From client)
<smaisala> Ok Bye  END
<njw> BYE END
*** njw has left channel #jemxadr : (Bye again)
