chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gavin Cornwell <gavin.cornw...@alfresco.com>
Subject Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Date Tue, 25 Mar 2014 15:24:47 GMT
Hi,

There’s one more thing to check on our side before giving the green light for 0.3, I will
work on that tomorrow and let you know as soon as I can.

Regards,

Gavin


On 25 Mar 2014, at 06:38, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Alright then. Just give me you OK when everything is ready for 0.3 from
> your side. I will then do the release.
> 
> Whenever you are ready for the initial browser binding checkin please let
> me know so that we can have a look and discuss the further approach :)
> 
> Regards,
> Lukas
> 
> On 3/24/14 11:14 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn¹t anything
>> else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday
>> tomorrow so I¹ll send a response tomorrow if that¹s OK?
>> 
>> If you don¹t mind doing the release that is absolutely fine with me ;-)
>> 
>> Regarding the browser binding, I created the branch over the weekend and
>> have merged the work I did previously into that locally. There is still
>> some work to do before I¹m happy doing an initial commit, but I plan on
>> doing that in the evenings this week so I should have something to
>> contribute soon.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Gavin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 21 Mar 2014, at 16:46, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Excellent thats also our opinion. However ACL write support is not on
>>> our
>>> list for the next weeks, so I would rather do a release now and then
>>> concentrate on Browser Binding.
>>> Do you want me to do the release? Please let me know how you want to
>>> proceed.
>>> 
>>> Regards,
>>> Lukas
>>> 
>>> On 3/21/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Hi,
>>>> 
>>>> I think yes, we should target the 0.3 release without the browser
>>>> binding.
>>>> 
>>>> We will probably need a 0.3 release sooner than 3-4 months (most likely
>>>> in the next month) and I will only be able to work on the browser
>>>> binding
>>>> as a background task in my spare time.
>>>> 
>>>> My preference therefore would be to finish your ACL write features and
>>>> release that as 0.3 and then have a 0.4 release for the browser binding
>>>> support.
>>>> 
>>>> What do you think?
>>>> 
>>>> Regards,
>>>> 
>>>> Gavin
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 13:01, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>> 
>>>>> The main question is: Do we target a 0.3 release without browser
>>>>> binding
>>>>> or do we plan to get browser binding done first. From our side this
>>>>> depends on the timeframe in which we can get this done. If we could
>>>>> get
>>>>> this done within lets say the next 2 to 3 months I would prefer to
>>>>> bundle
>>>>> everything together and release 0.3. If you think we need longer than
>>>>> we
>>>>> should consider moving browser binding to 0.4. However we have a
>>>>> strong
>>>>> demand for browser binding and therefore plan to have at least one
>>>>> person
>>>>> working full-time on this topic.
>>>>> The only other thing currently in our pipeline is write support for
>>>>> ACLs.
>>>>> We recently committed the parser for read support however write is
>>>>> still
>>>>> missing. We plan to do this also during the next weeks.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Lukas
>>>>> 
>>>>> On 3/20/14 10:27 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Excellent, a 0.3 release would also be really useful for us too.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would suggest doing a release sooner rather than later, what other
>>>>>> implementation tasks are there from your side that would need to
be
>>>>>> done
>>>>>> before 0.3?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Gav
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:58, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I agree that it would be more consistent to have only the request
>>>>>>> object
>>>>>>> to cancel a request. I will change our code to use the request
>>>>>>> objects
>>>>>>> cancel method and then remove the stop parameter from the library.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We had problems using Google hangout in the past, however we
could
>>>>>>> give
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> another try. Just let me know when you have setup the branch
and we
>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>> schedule a session.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> We should also discuss the timeframe for the upcoming implementation
>>>>>>> tasks
>>>>>>> so that we can plan the Objective CMIS 0.3 release. We need this
new
>>>>>>> release as early as possible so that we can get an approval for
it
>>>>>>> :)
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Lukas
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 3/19/14 10:21 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I do see your point about the stop parameter being a common
>>>>>>>> paradigm
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> iOS, however, personally I would prefer that we remove it,
>>>>>>>> especially
>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>> the request approach works. We then have one consistent way
to
>>>>>>>> cancel
>>>>>>>> operations across the whole library (the parameter approach
is only
>>>>>>>> applicable to methods with progress).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Great to hear you're also interested in the browser binding.
I did
>>>>>>>> my
>>>>>>>> initial work a while ago so I need to sync it with the recent
>>>>>>>> changes
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> I'll commit it in a branch as soon as I can.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I too think it would be a great idea to resurrect the status
>>>>>>>> meeting,
>>>>>>>> even if it's just once a month. I will schedule something
once I've
>>>>>>>> committed something. Can you remind me, are you guys able
to use
>>>>>>>> Google
>>>>>>>> Hangouts or would webex be a better choice?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Gavin
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 


Mime
View raw message