Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BBABC10C8D for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:38:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 51097 invoked by uid 500); 25 Mar 2014 06:38:54 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-chemistry-dev-archive@chemistry.apache.org Received: (qmail 50327 invoked by uid 500); 25 Mar 2014 06:38:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@chemistry.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@chemistry.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@chemistry.apache.org Received: (qmail 50285 invoked by uid 99); 25 Mar 2014 06:38:42 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:38:42 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of lukas.gross@sap.com designates 155.56.66.98 as permitted sender) Received: from [155.56.66.98] (HELO smtpgw.sap-ag.de) (155.56.66.98) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:38:37 +0000 From: "Gross, Lukas" To: "dev@chemistry.apache.org" Subject: Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS Thread-Topic: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS Thread-Index: AQHPQel7hOtkiH96ykyyqONSNfs/c5rlaWuAgABJI4CAAq/0WIAAe0gAgADCowCAAAgggIAATL6AgAFnyQCAAGltAIAEOJoAgAFmpwA= Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 06:38:14 +0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.8.130913 x-originating-ip: [10.21.40.95] Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-ID: <11D97483D23B724FB87731F82DFEE65B@exchange.sap.corp> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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" wrote: >Hi, > >Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn=B9t anything >else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday >tomorrow so I=B9ll send a response tomorrow if that=B9s OK? > >If you don=B9t 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=B9m 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 wrote: > >> Hi, >>=20 >> 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. >>=20 >> Regards, >> Lukas >>=20 >> On 3/21/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" >>wrote: >>=20 >>> Hi, >>>=20 >>> I think yes, we should target the 0.3 release without the browser >>>binding. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> 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. >>>=20 >>> What do you think? >>>=20 >>> Regards, >>>=20 >>> Gavin >>>=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 13:01, Gross, Lukas wrote: >>>=20 >>>> Hi, >>>>=20 >>>> 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. >>>>=20 >>>> Regards, >>>> Lukas >>>>=20 >>>> On 3/20/14 10:27 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" >>>> wrote: >>>>=20 >>>>> Hi, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Excellent, a 0.3 release would also be really useful for us too. >>>>>=20 >>>>> 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? >>>>>=20 >>>>> Cheers, >>>>>=20 >>>>> Gav >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>> On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:58, Gross, Lukas wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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. >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>:) >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Lukas >>>>>>=20 >>>>>> On 3/19/14 10:21 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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). >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> 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? >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>>> Gavin >>>>>>=20 >>>>>=20 >>>>=20 >>>=20 >>=20 >