Mailing-List: contact dev-help@chemistry.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@chemistry.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jeffpotts01@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.42 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date
         :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer;
        b=b3a4ScYEJJ73YhZyiO2quombsc7jinvecfGlbbCyPB1PpMUzF6eL1i6zlJ088tBbpP
         OhTHGY2GHPcRsNi95zkLRiIwuHL0P+B0w9R4MxumtLLChDFDyeBUhd6AtgzXtiR0rxL3
         D+iN79rC6sjm4fZ9hYnIalBA1LYUcTCOkqPxw=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1084)
Subject: Re: CMIS Browser Binding implementation
From: Jeff Potts <jeffpotts01@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <4DA865CC.2040709@alfresco.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 10:52:45 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4AD8B127-3BF0-4A0D-943A-43FA89F15419@gmail.com>
References: <4DA865CC.2040709@alfresco.com>
To: dev@chemistry.apache.org

This sounds very cool. One curiosity question: Why is it called a =
"browser binding"? If the main differentiation between it and the other =
two bindings is that JSON is going back and forth, that is obviously =
useful, but not limited to web browsers. Server-side JavaScript apps =
could also take advantage of this binding, right? Or are there =
additional pieces to the binding beyond JSON that only make sense in the =
context of the browser?

Just trying to get a sense of where this can/can't be used.

Jeff

On Apr 15, 2011, at 10:35 AM, Florian M=FCller wrote:

> Hi,
>=20
> The CMIS browser binding proposal is about to be moved into the CMIS =
1.1 specification draft. The browser binding is a third binding beside =
the Web Services binding and AtomPub binding. It is based on JSON and =
optimized for consumption by JavaScript scripts in a web browser.
> We have a first OpenCMIS server implementation in a Chemistry sandbox. =
It covers about 2/3 of the proposal.
>=20
> Although the browser binding will only be specified for CMIS 1.1, it =
should also work for CMIS 1.0. This binding is more efficient and =
simpler to consume than the other two. We should foster its adoption.
> I would like to roll the sandbox project into the server framework and =
complete the implementation there. We can turn it off by default. =
Whoever is interested can switch it on and play with it.
>=20
> Since this is major code shift, I would like to hear some opinions =
before I tackle this.=20
>=20
>=20
> Thanks,
>=20
> Florian