chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gavin Cornwell <>
Subject Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Date Mon, 24 Mar 2014 10:14:32 GMT

Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn’t anything else required for
0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday tomorrow so I’ll send a response tomorrow
if that’s OK?

If you don’t 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 I’m happy doing
an initial commit, but I plan on doing that in the evenings this week so I should have something
to contribute soon.



On 21 Mar 2014, at 16:46, Gross, Lukas <> 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" <> 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 <> 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" <>
>>> 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 <> 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" <>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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

View raw message