2018-12-19 Meeting notes

Coming out of the Workflow PoC there's a desire to allow people to use the Spring framework in developing FOLIO - even Core applications/capabilities.

• Spring Boot and Spring MVC 'top' frameworks in the Java (and other) community - very common
• Likely why Camunda had support for Spring Boot
• One aspect of allowing Spring Framework (especially for a core module) would be to demonstrate FOLIO's architecture's agnostic nature
• Contention that it would be easier to learn Spring Boot as compared to Vert.x. Assumed easy for dev to move from Vert.x to Spring
• Spitfire team has also expressed interest in using Spring
• Decision for today? 
  • One idea - formal request to have Spring Boot supported in Core modules (and Okapi)... then kick off a process for answering that request within TC
  • Spitfire has a PR (Sobha to add link RP) mod-kb-ebsco-java - not sure who would evaluate that - who leads that Repo?

Provide update from Nassib on estimation of LDP work:

Steps required to complete a report:

1. Identify the APIs related to the report information

2. Map the Data Attributes from the APIs to data elements desired in the report

3. Update the database design so that those data elements have a place to land and can be queried efficiently.

4. Create ETL to call the API and transform as needed so the data elements can be loaded

5. Create the report which pulls data from the new database elements

In addition to creating this report we also need to worry about ongoing maintenance, which fall into 2 categories:

1. Standard upkeep and maintenance; scheduling jobs to pull data out of FOLIO into the reporting database, error tracking/resolution should jobs fail, etc.

2. Documenting changes to FOLIO APIs and amending the ETL and/or database schema as needed due to FOLIO changes

We don’t have enough data to make good estimates on the above activity because the sample size is too small. Once we have more API descriptions/documentation (i.e. FOLIO-155) we can implement more ETL and reports and at that point have a good basis for a longer term estimate.

Update on discussions related to AES and the RFC process

• Process wise we've hit a gap - some feedback but not a lot. What does the TC do? We Approve the RFC.
• AES as an effort - dev has continued but it's not on anyone's critical path.
• Question - how does the Pub/Sub work relate and what issues arise from that? - likely complimentary- more discussion/documentation needed. Action to Vince and Jakub.

Discuss next steps on the presentation that was provided a few weeks ago by Taras and Jeffrey

• Ask Stripes Architecture group to review and prioritize what was asked for and review with TC for recommendation for a plan