chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Peter Monks <pmo...@alfresco.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
Date Mon, 12 Aug 2013 03:15:16 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message