Mailing-List: contact dev-help@chemistry.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@chemistry.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of columbro@gmail.com designates
 209.85.212.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <a18a2e0992e610785079d18c99435760-EhVcXl9JQQFXRwQFDQkEXR0wfgZLV15fQUBFBEFYXS9aBFgIVQkjAVVfDwkJFE8AXVpYSlJWWAgwXnUGU1ZVXF9AQQ==-webmailer2@server02.webmailer.hosteurope.de>
References: <5203E208.4090000@apache.org>
	<2767A70F8371284B98513C2B582F84B157ADB5B3@DEWDFEMB16A.global.corp.sap>
	<OF0D4C63BE.7803C698-ON88257BC2.00554DD4-88257BC2.0056861F@us.ibm.com>
	<C2B09EE3-6FF3-45E5-86F7-CC3648EAAAA8@alfresco.com>
	<22edc5366187c25559b20df6aca0740f-EhVcXl9JQQFXRwQFDQkEXR0wfgZLV15fQUBFBEFYXS9aBFgIVQkjAVVfDwkJFE8AXVpYSlJWWAgwXnUGU1ZdV1lFQA==-webmailer2@server02.webmailer.hosteurope.de>
	<E7329129-4CBB-4F4A-BF98-57D80BCBF421@alfresco.com>
	<a18a2e0992e610785079d18c99435760-EhVcXl9JQQFXRwQFDQkEXR0wfgZLV15fQUBFBEFYXS9aBFgIVQkjAVVfDwkJFE8AXVpYSlJWWAgwXnUGU1ZVXF9AQQ==-webmailer2@server02.webmailer.hosteurope.de>
Date: Tue, 13 Aug 2013 11:00:52 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAK3ZeLYP4D0HHqhXttaYoA_5iTb1vnjiJ0jvrGV-N9oeBi_U7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
From: Gabriele Columbro <columbro@gmail.com>
To: dev@chemistry.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11339eda64921404e3d07a83

--001a11339eda64921404e3d07a83
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Florian M=FCller <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 M=FCller <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 th=
e
>>> InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
>>> Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't wor=
k
>>> 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. T=
ill
>>> now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> CMIS 1.1) and cor=
rect.
>>> 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 tha=
t'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 m=
ore
>>> authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific adaptations for
>>> certain environments (application servers, enterprise service buses, JA=
X-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) betwee=
n
>>>>> 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 thi=
s
>>>>> 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 o=
f
>>>>> 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 min=
or
>>>>> 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 M=FCller" <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 M=FCller <fmui@apache.org> wro=
te:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> 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
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>


--=20
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

--001a11339eda64921404e3d07a83--