chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Florian Müller <>
Subject Re: Product/vendor specific contributions to Chemistry
Date Tue, 08 Feb 2011 21:35:45 GMT

I'm indecisive on this one.
On the one hand I think OpenCMIS should be vendor independent. Also, the 
OpenCMIS release cycle might not match the vendors release cycle.
On the other hand it would be nice to provide out-of-box connectivity to 
as many repositories as possible.

How about keeping the code out of OpenCMIS but providing connection 
instructions for different repositories on the Chemistry website?
The instructions could, of course, include links to additional jars that 
are required.

I agree with Jens that NTLM is different. It's an independent 
authentication protocol - even if it is only used by a few (well, one) 
If we find more of those, I think they belong into OpenCMIS. Digest 
authentication and SSL client certificates come to mind.

- Florian

On 08/02/2011 16:15, Florent Guillaume wrote:
> Hi,
> FWIW Nuxeo also has a very similar class for its own kinds of
> tickets-based-on-simple-secrets:
> There's no vendor-specific dependency in either case, so it's not a
> problem having these classes in Chemistry, although in our case we
> prefer distributing it with the rest of the Nuxeo libraries as the
> semantics of the secret sharing and header use are really part of
> Nuxeo.
> Florent
> On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:06 PM, Jens Hübel<>  wrote:
>> Not sure that I have the full picture yet about the proposed enhancement, but in
general I feel it would be better to provide a generic extension point in CMIS with the possibility
to drop another Alfresco (or anybody else's) jar on the class path instead of adding dozens
of vendor specific extensions to the Chemistry code bases over time.
>> Looking at the motivation mentioned in the issue tracker...
>>> "The default authentication scheme supported by OpenCMIS is HTTP BASIC which
is not
>>> suitable for any serious deployment due to the fact that it sends userids and
passwords in
>>> the clear at each request
>> ... well if there is anything better that makes sense we should talk about this,
but securing a repository is a wider field than just avoiding sending passwords over the wire.
>> The NTLM authentication could be seen as another example of such an integration but
for me this is on a different level of "vendor specific".
>> Just my thoughts I am open for discussion...
>> Jens
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Nick Burch []
>> Sent: Dienstag, 8. Februar 2011 00:21
>> To:
>> Subject: Re: Product/vendor specific contributions to Chemistry
>> On Mon, 7 Feb 2011, Gabriele Columbro wrote:
>>> this contribution to Alfresco [1] which also comprise a potential
>>> contribution to OpenCMIS is triggering to ask me a more general question
>>> on the list.
>>> What is our (and ASF) position with respect to product specific
>>> contributions? Meaning, do you see any "netiquette" or other issues in
>>> committing this the OpenCMIS codebase?
>> My gut feeling is that if you can compile the code without needing any
>> Alfresco jars, and if it's a small-ish optional feature, then it probably
>> makes sense to have it in Chemistry so it's easy for people to use. We'd
>> just need to ensure there's always another way to do it though, so people
>> can code generically if they want to.
>> For code that requires Alfresco (or anyone else's) jars to compile
>> against, it'll almost certainly need to be a different module. If that is
>> hosted in Chemistry or outside will depend on both the license, and how
>> close a fit the community feels it is.
>> In this case, I seem to recall there's already an alternate authentication
>> provider for NTLM, so this would seem an OK addition for people who wanted
>> it, which others can ignore if they don't.
>> Nick

View raw message