chemistry-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Gross, Lukas" <lukas.gr...@sap.com>
Subject Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Date Mon, 31 Mar 2014 14:48:12 GMT
Hi Gavin,

Sure - just drop me an email when you have fixed the issue :)

Cheers,
Lukas

On 3/31/14 3:51 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com> wrote:

>Hi Lukas,
>
>I’ve found another bug (uploads do not cancel) that would be really good
>to be fixed before we do the 0.3 release.
>
>I’m testing a solution right now, can you please hold off the release
>until I’ve committed the fix?
>
>Regards,
>
>Gavin
>
>
>
>On 28 Mar 2014, at 08:29, Gavin Cornwell <gavin.cornwell@alfresco.com>
>wrote:
>
>> 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