chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gross, Lukas" <>
Subject Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Date Thu, 20 Mar 2014 13:01:51 GMT

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.


On 3/20/14 10:27 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <> wrote:

>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?
>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
>> 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
>> 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" <>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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