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 Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:38:14 GMT

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 :)


On 3/24/14 11:14 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <> wrote:

>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.
>On 21 Mar 2014, at 16:46, Gross, Lukas <> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> Excellent thats also our opinion. However ACL write support is not on
>> 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" <>
>>> Hi,
>>> I think yes, we should target the 0.3 release without the browser
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>> should consider moving browser binding to 0.4. However we have a
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>> iOS, however, personally I would prefer that we remove it,
>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>> the request approach works. We then have one consistent way to
>>>>>>> operations across the whole library (the parameter approach is
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> even if it's just once a month. I will schedule something once
>>>>>>> committed something. Can you remind me, are you guys able to
>>>>>>> Google
>>>>>>> Hangouts or would webex be a better choice?
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>> Gavin

View raw message