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 Fri, 28 Mar 2014 08:29:49 GMT
Hi,

Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.

Regards,

Gavin



On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lukas.gross@sap.com> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> We have some minor fixes on our side that I'm going to commit today.
> I will take care of the 0.3 release next week.
> 
> Regards,
> Lukas
> 
> On 3/27/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com> wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I have run through all the tests on our side and found a couple of minor
>> issues that I addressed yesterday (project settings and a progress issue).
>> 
>> There is still an Xcode warning/suggestion on the project settings (when
>> using Xcode 5.1) which caused a problem building with Xcode 5.0 so I’ve
>> left them as they were for now. The 64 bit slice is being included in the
>> binary so I think this will be fine for this release.
>> 
>> Unless you have a different opinion on the project settings I think we’re
>> ready for the 0.3 release.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Gavin
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 25 Mar 2014, at 15:24, Gavin Cornwell <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> 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