chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gabriele Columbro <gabri...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
Date Wed, 14 Aug 2013 14:28:37 GMT
So, just to close this thread, as per its original subject, 0.10.0 RC1 is
out.

Let's start a separate thread for 1.0.

Thanks, very interesting discussion.

Gab

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Huebel, Jens <j.huebel@sap.com> wrote:

> Sounds good to me Gab.
>
> Florian and I will go through the remaining topics and come up with a
> suggestion how to proceed with the 1.0 release.
>
> Jens
>
>
> On 13.08.13 11:00, "Gabriele Columbro" <columbro@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Florian Müller <fmui@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> How about this:
> >> We release 0.10.0 now, compile a road map, publish it and work on v1.0.
> >>
> >
> >That seems a valid approach to me, as allow us to move on and because
> >tasks
> >can be easily parallelized.
> >
> >I will work and push out 0.10.0 as is for vote anyway and potentially
> >complete the release this week. For the record, also because I feel a bit
> >guilty for not having found time to push out 0.9.1 (and the WSDL major
> >fixes coming with it) in due time...
> >
> >Still, I think Peter points are very spot on, and I this we should release
> >1.0 very soon.
> >
> >So, in parallel, Florian can take the lead on discussing the roadmap in
> >Jira / email / website. I have a couple of things myself I want to do from
> >a release cleanup / handover standpoint for 1.0 so would be good to
> >timebox
> >1.0 and see what is possible.
> >
> >Deal? :)
> >
> >Thanks,
> >
> >Gab
> >
> >
> >> Florian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>  G'day Florian,
> >>>
> >>> Yeah *I* understand that OpenCMIS is production grade - I've
> >>> explicitly chosen to use it in several Alfresco products that I
> >>> manage.  The problem is when I deliver that message to other
> >>> prospective implementers it sometimes falls on deaf ears.
> >>>
> >>> Having the explanation below, or Dieter's quote, or similar may help
> >>> such implementers to decide in favour of OpenCMIS.  Having a v1.0
> >>> would be more effective.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> Peter
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Florian Müller <fmui@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>  Hi Peter,
> >>>>
> >>>> OpenCMIS consists of multiple more or less independent parts. The
> >>>> "serious flaw" was that the client library couldn't connect to a Web
> >>>> Service endpoint anymore. That doesn't touch the server framework or
> >>>>the
> >>>> InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
> >>>> Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't
> >>>>work
> >>>> out. But that shouldn't stop us from improving other areas.
> >>>>
> >>>> OpenCMIS is used in many open source and commercial products and
> >>>> productive scenarios today. But the JavaDoc could be improved and
> >>>>some code
> >>>> areas could need some more comments and clean up to make it better
> >>>> maintainable. I think 'high quality' is also defined by these things.
> >>>>Till
> >>>> now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> CMIS 1.1) and
> >>>>correct.
> >>>> Personally, I would like to address the documentation and
> >>>> maintainability areas before we release v1.0, even if it doesn't
> >>>>change any
> >>>> APIs and we could theoretically do this after v1.0 is released. But
> >>>>that's
> >>>> only my opinion. It should be a community decision.
> >>>>
> >>>> Apart from that, I guess OpenCMIS development will not stop for a long
> >>>> time. At least the TCK will grow. But I can also envision support for
> >>>>more
> >>>> authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific adaptations
> >>>>for
> >>>> certain environments (application servers, enterprise service buses,
> >>>>JAX-WS
> >>>> implementations, etc.).
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> - Florian
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>  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
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Gabriele Columbro
> >Principal Architect, Consulting Services
> >Alfresco Software <http://www.alfresco.com>
> >twitter: @mindthegabz <http://twitter.com/#%21/mindthegabz>
> >blog: http://mindthegab.com
> >mobile: +31627565013
>
>


-- 
Gabriele Columbro
Principal Architect, Consulting Services
Alfresco Software <http://www.alfresco.com>
twitter: @mindthegabz <http://twitter.com/#!/mindthegabz>
blog: http://mindthegab.com

*"Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue"*

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