Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD6EBD906 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:32:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 15596 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2012 21:32:35 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@chemistry.apache.org Received: (qmail 15551 invoked by uid 500); 26 Oct 2012 21:32:35 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@chemistry.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@chemistry.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@chemistry.apache.org Received: (qmail 15542 invoked by uid 99); 26 Oct 2012 21:32:35 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:32:35 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,MISSING_HEADERS,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS,TVD_FW_GRAPHIC_NAME_MID X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of jay.brown@us.ibm.com designates 32.97.110.151 as permitted sender) Received: from [32.97.110.151] (HELO e33.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.151) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 21:32:23 +0000 Received: from /spool/local by e33.co.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:32:01 -0600 Received: from d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (9.17.202.178) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (192.168.1.133) with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:32:00 -0600 Received: from d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.226]) by d03dlp02.boulder.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 97EF43E4003C for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:31:59 -0600 (MDT) Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by d03relay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id q9QLVv1R171086 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:31:57 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id q9QLVvJ2009453 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:31:57 -0600 Received: from d03nm125.boulder.ibm.com (d03nm125.boulder.ibm.com [9.63.34.13]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id q9QLVv0Y009445 for ; Fri, 26 Oct 2012 15:31:57 -0600 In-Reply-To: References: Subject: Re: OpenCMIS and CMIS 1.1 X-KeepSent: 9B5FA851:DF77D222-87257AA3:0075A0B5; type=4; name=$KeepSent Cc: dev@chemistry.apache.org X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5.3 September 15, 2011 Message-ID: From: Jay Brown Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:31:52 -0700 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM125/03/M/IBM(Release 8.5.3FP2 ZX853FP2HF2|October 8, 2012) at 10/26/2012 03:31:54 PM MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: multipart/related; Boundary="0__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625" X-Content-Scanned: Fidelis XPS MAILER x-cbid: 12102621-2398-0000-0000-00000CE28AAD X-IBM-ISS-SpamDetectors: X-IBM-ISS-DetailInfo: BY=3.00000294; HX=3.00000198; KW=3.00000007; PH=3.00000001; SC=3.00000008; SDB=6.00185922; UDB=6.00042119; UTC=2012-10-26 21:32:01 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --0__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625 Content-type: multipart/alternative; Boundary="1__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625" --1__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable I would strongly recommend having the latest version of OpenCMIS always= support current and back versions of the specification. Even at the c= ost of significant extra development. Since OpenCMIS is now effectively the standard client library, having t= o use a different version to take advantage of > 1.0 versions may have th= e effect of slowing adoption or worse creating a implied/perceived compatibility gap between providers who move up and those that take lon= ger to adopt 1.1. Jay Brown Senior Engineer, ECM Development IBM Software Group jay.brown@us.ibm.com |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |Florian M=FCller = = | >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |, = = | >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |10/26/2012 02:07 PM = = | >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| |OpenCMIS and CMIS 1.1 = = | >--------------------------------------------------------------------= -----------------------------------------------------------------------= -------| Hi, The CMIS 1.1 specification is now stable. The public review ended abou= t two weeks ago. That is, nothing material can be changed anymore. OpenCMIS already supports the CMIS 1.1 Browser Binding. To complete th= e CMIS 1.1 support, we would have to add a few new operations and constants. My vision is to support CMIS 1.0 and CMIS 1.1 with the same client library and the same server framework. The client should automatically= adapt to the CMIS version of the repository. The server framework shou= ld be able provide endpoints for both CMIS versions. The alternative is to provide separate libraries for each CMIS version= . That would make the internal implementation simpler, but I think that would be more cumbersome for OpenCMIS users. Any thoughts? Thanks, Florian = --1__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625 Content-type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable

I would strongly recommend havi= ng the latest version of OpenCMIS always support current and back versi= ons of the specification.   Even at the cost of significant extra = development.

Since OpenCMIS is now effectively = the standard client library, having to use a different version to take = advantage of > 1.0 versions may have the effect of slowing adoption = or worse creating a implied/perceived  compatibility gap between p= roviders who move up and those that take longer to adopt 1.1.  


Jay Brown
Senior Engineer, ECM Development
IBM Software Group
jay.brown@us.ibm.com

3D"InactiveFlorian M=FCller ---10/26/2012 02:07:08 PM--- Hi,  Th= e CMIS 1.1 specification is now stable. The public review ended about

= <= /tr>
3D=
    From:
3D""
Florian M=FCller <fmui@apache.o= rg>
3D=
    To:
3D""
<dev@chemistry.apache.org>, =
3D=
    Date:
3D""
10/26/2012 02:07 PM
3D=
    Subject:
3D""
OpenCMIS and CMIS 1.1




 Hi,

The CMIS 1.1 specification is now stable. The public review ended abou= t
two weeks ago. That is, nothing material can be changed anymore.

OpenCMIS already supports the CMIS 1.1 Browser Binding. To complete th= e
CMIS 1.1 support, we would have to add a few new operations and
constants.

My vision is to support CMIS 1.0 and CMIS 1.1 with the same client library and the same server framework. The client should automatically=
adapt to the CMIS version of the repository. The server framework shou= ld
be able provide endpoints for both CMIS versions.

The alternative is to provide separate libraries for each CMIS version= .
That would make the internal implementation simpler, but I think that =
would be more cumbersome for OpenCMIS users.

Any thoughts?


Thanks,

Florian



= --1__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625-- --0__=08BBF030DFE626258f9e8a93df938690918c08BBF030DFE62625--