Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 252F410B3F for ; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 18:10:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 54782 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2013 18:10:06 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@chemistry.apache.org Received: (qmail 54687 invoked by uid 500); 5 Dec 2013 18:10:05 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@chemistry.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@chemistry.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@chemistry.apache.org Received: (qmail 54679 invoked by uid 99); 5 Dec 2013 18:10:05 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:10:05 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of mcs130@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.51 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.51] (HELO mail-pb0-f51.google.com) (209.85.160.51) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 18:09:59 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f51.google.com with SMTP id up15so26601116pbc.10 for ; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:09:39 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=uJO8ODidsaqHH4Q7GICl9XhM4n4yq4j91fRt8olnkEg=; b=uDIjUpIe8S6pXrf4joBgWquvpWYf/YP+Qq4qU7HzPlEHl8ud9sDLKd2lxd/1264AJY PVZ7hwtDKEnnHochSLMA0GpNadpNPakz3F/QZEQIcp+16v/INRd1sOfLUVJJ9Mek+NB7 ftL16EhQmo+zU+78f1dKbcw1D4jQXVUyT7zOFJCz0nKJzzKqPKw87/Sf0+Sfz/TBKuOs /RnDDGZ2lM6AxFUfuv03x1MCTCTUzlhbUrAGLKUgy0E1+qRnRbO1eqYIKJj2vd3JfRIH 5rRC1PB21z/RWbYG4crj18pHNpBzWTaMkftbt6OqJv9aG0X2Kj8y0FIVHt4F0Ybm2B5h dnHQ== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.65.108 with SMTP id w12mr87178462pas.84.1386266979543; Thu, 05 Dec 2013 10:09:39 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.53.193 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Dec 2013 10:09:39 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2013 13:09:39 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Question about CmisObject and getRenditions() method From: Mark Streit To: "dev@chemistry.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1134b85ae1300e04eccd6e3a X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a1134b85ae1300e04eccd6e3a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Chemistry Experts I have what I hope is an easy clarification question: We currently have 2 development streams for our client side code where we use: - OpenCMIS - 0.8.0-RELEASE on the client side and Alfresco Enterprise 4.1.5 on the server side - OpenCMIS - 0.10.0-RELEASE on the client side and Alfresco Enterprise 4.1.5 on the server side Note that the SAME Alfresco server is being used as the "back-end" in each case - and the same target Folder is queried to return the list of Document objects and then fetch available *renditions* The snippet of code that we are using looks like this: OperationContext context = session.createOperationContext(); context.setRenditionFilterString("cmis:thumbnail"); CmisObject targetDocument = session.getObject(documentId, context); * List renditions = targetDocument.getRenditions();* When looping through the set of "Document" objects, we make this call above and it works correctly each time - however we now notice one significant difference: *If cmis:thumbnail does NOT exist for a particular documentId we observe the following:* with OpenCMIS - 0.8.0-RELEASE - the List comes back as *non-null *and with a count of ZERO with OpenCMIS - 0.10.0-RELEASE - the List comes back as null only Am I misunderstanding something? I realize the back-end service is going to return some object on this call and given that this is the SAME server (that would assume to be the same) ... but 2 different client implementations (both are using AtomPub binding), and stepping through the Debugger, for the same document request, the behavior is different. ... not sure what else could explain it beyond the difference in client side libraries version being used. Thanks Mark --001a1134b85ae1300e04eccd6e3a--