chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Guendisch, Dieter" <dieter.guendi...@sap.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2013 07:35:48 GMT
Hi Peter,

I like this statement:
http://iandunn.name/open-source-values-reflected-in-version-numbering/
That's why "no reason to rush" can perfectly co-exist with 0.x versions
being considered stable.

Regards,
Dieter

On 12.08.13 05:15, "Peter Monks" <pmonks@alfresco.com> wrote:

>If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes for
>cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more conservative,
>fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>
>Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to rush."
>concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years ago and
>the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable, reliable
>client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an official
>CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by this lack.
>
>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS sub-project
>though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client libraries, or is
>it more around client library experimentation?
>
>Cheers,
>Peter
>
>
>
> 
> 
>
>
>On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <jay.brown@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>> 
>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between
>>now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as
>>well. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Jay Brown
>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>> IBM Software Group
>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>> 
>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this
>>is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had
>> 
>> 
>> From:
>> 
>> "Huebel, Jens" <j.huebel@sap.com>
>> 
>> To:
>> 
>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <dev@chemistry.apache.org>,
>> 
>> Date:
>> 
>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>> 
>> Subject:
>> 
>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>> 
>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made
>>us
>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>> 
>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of
>>a
>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of
>>classes.
>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>> 
>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>> 
>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>> 
>> Just my 2 cents
>> 
>> Jens
>> 
>> 
>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fmui@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>> >
>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>> >
>> >
>> >- Florian
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing
>>whatever's
>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes
>>etc.
>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either)
>>from
>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can
>>tell).
>> >> 
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Peter
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fmui@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that.
>>Any
>> >>>opinions?
>> >>>
>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it
>>sufficiently
>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some
>>places
>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> - Florian
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version
>>bump?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nick
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>


Mime
View raw message