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 Fri, 21 Mar 2014 16:46:55 GMT

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


On 3/21/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <> wrote:

>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
>What do you think?
>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
>> 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
>> working full-time on this topic.
>> The only other thing currently in our pipeline is write support for
>> 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" <>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> it
>>>> another try. Just let me know when you have setup the branch and we
>>>> 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
>>>>> 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
>>>>> Hangouts or would webex be a better choice?
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> Gavin

View raw message