Hello CVII community!
Here is the agenda/plan for today's Tech Stack meeting
-
(Permanent agenda item)
Report recent progress on each of the relevant* projects.
-
Deep dive discussion on the current state of the tech stack work - see
below for details.
- A reminder to new participants: "Relevant" for this meeting means all
projects involved in the transfer/processing of "the standard data model"
(represented by VSS) and services model (VSC, under development), in some way.
For item 2:
Looking at the tech stack landscape today I see a lot of diversity, which
could be a positive and important thing, but at this point I think it's
also a bit disorganized. When I look into the details I also want to
discuss with you if we are writing systems in a quick and prototype-ish
way, or if the steps are taken towards true production-level
implementations? Also my feeling is that implementations seem somewhat
monolithic.
Can we build an ecosystem of pluggable components as discussed many times,
and in the process accelerate the creation of complete systems as well?
If you agree, this is the time to start organizing that work better!
Current issues seem related to one or several of these things. Let's
discuss your view.
- Not a clear enough focus on reusable components.
- A wide diversity of programming languages and runtimes
- Not identifying what the requirements are for production-level code
- Not identifying where we have "formal" (defined/documented) interfaces as
opposed to internal interfaces.
I'd like our community to start discussing some of these aspects to build a
more homogeneous approach to the development.
Questions
A) Do we agree on the list of required components, their responsibilities
and interfaces?
B) What, in your view, are acceptable choices (and preferred choices)
for programming languages and runtimes:
C) In existing architecture pictures (e.g. CCS), and framework
implementations (e.g. iot-event-analytics/vehicle-edge/KUKSA.val, AOS)
which interfaces:
- are documented
- need to be documented
- do NOT need to be documented (= internal / implementation detail)
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion today.
--
Gunnar Andersson gandersson@covesa.global
Technical Lead
COVESA - The Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance
Hello CVII community!
Here is the agenda/plan for today's Tech Stack meeting
1. (Permanent agenda item)
Report recent progress on each of the relevant* projects.
2. Deep dive discussion on the current state of the tech stack work - see
below for details.
* A reminder to new participants: "Relevant" for this meeting means all
projects involved in the transfer/processing of "the standard data model"
(represented by VSS) and services model (VSC, under development), in some way.
For item 2:
Looking at the tech stack landscape today I see a lot of diversity, which
could be a positive and important thing, but at this point I think it's
also a bit disorganized. When I look into the details I also want to
discuss with you if we are writing systems in a quick and prototype-ish
way, or if the steps are taken towards true production-level
implementations? Also my feeling is that implementations seem somewhat
monolithic.
Can we build an ecosystem of pluggable components as discussed many times,
and in the process accelerate the creation of complete systems as well?
If you agree, this is the time to start organizing that work better!
Current issues seem related to one or several of these things. Let's
discuss your view.
- Not a clear enough focus on reusable components.
- A wide diversity of programming languages and runtimes
- Not identifying what the requirements are for production-level code
- Not identifying where we have "formal" (defined/documented) interfaces as
opposed to internal interfaces.
I'd like our community to start discussing some of these aspects to build a
more homogeneous approach to the development.
Questions
---------
A) Do we agree on the list of required components, their responsibilities
and interfaces?
B) What, in your view, are acceptable choices (and preferred choices)
for programming languages and runtimes:
- In-cloud
- In-vehicle
C) In existing architecture pictures (e.g. CCS), and framework
implementations (e.g. iot-event-analytics/vehicle-edge/KUKSA.val, AOS)
which interfaces:
- are documented
- need to be documented
- do NOT need to be documented (= internal / implementation detail)
Looking forward to a fruitful discussion today.
--
Gunnar Andersson <gandersson@covesa.global>
Technical Lead
COVESA - The Connected Vehicle Systems Alliance