chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Florian Müller <f...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
Date Tue, 13 Aug 2013 08:36:54 GMT
 How about this:
 We release 0.10.0 now, compile a road map, publish it and work on v1.0.

 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
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>


Mime
View raw message