chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Webster <>
Subject Re: Returned ObjectId on check in (WS vs. AtomPub)
Date Fri, 12 Apr 2013 10:56:21 GMT
There were properties on the PWC that the user saw as incorrect,
specifically 'creation date' and 'created by'.  The reason for this is that
these properties reflect the PWC, not the 'first version' of the document,
which is what they want to see.  Our initial workaround was to not return
the PWC after the check-out, but rather the original document they are
checking in.

What was then happening was we'd check in the 'first version' and we were
getting the latest version ID back from the repository, which we would then
display to the user.  Thinking about it more, I guess this was done without
realizing we were checking in a non-PWC, because it all worked the way we
expected.  Until, that is, we switched to WS binding, when all of a sudden
the latest ID wasn't being returned and on check in the 'old' document was
being displayed instead of the new one.

In the end I implemented a 'proper' fix.  We return the PWC on checkout,
but with the creation date and created by properties from the FIRST (or
earliest) version of the document.  The whole reason for this requirement
is that our old DMS system (FileNet Content Services) behaves in this
manner, and we wanted to keep this consistent.  The user wants to see when
and by whom the FIRST version of the document was added, not the LAST.


On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 11:38 AM, Florent Guillaume <> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Tim Webster <>
> wrote:
> > Picture a query result set within our client application, similar to what
> > you'd see in the CMIS Workbench. In it, the user doesn't want to 'see'
> the
> > PWC if a document is checked out, they only want to see the LMV.  So on
> > checkout, we don't send the PWC to the client. To do a check in, we need
> to
> > then fetch the PWC (if we're using WS).
> Sorry if I seem obtuse, but if the client doesn't see the PWC then why
> would he want to do a checkin? The checkin is basically saying "I'm
> done with the PWC", right?
> (Just trying to get to the bottom of this because it's always
> important to me to discover and understand new use cases in document
> managements systems, especially around versioning.)
> Florent
> --
> Florent Guillaume, Director of R&D, Nuxeo
> Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM)
>   +33 1 40 33 79 87

Check out my wine blog:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message