You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@chemistry.apache.org by Shane Johnson <sj...@citytechinc.com> on 2009/05/12 23:51:11 UTC

thoughts on spec

Hi Everyone,

I have a few thoughts regarding the CMIS specification that came about while working on unit tests. Right now I'm just focusing on the repository info.

<cmis:repositoryInfo>
  <cmis:repositoryId>repid1</cmis:repositoryId>
  <cmis:repositoryName>Repository1</cmis:repositoryName>
  <cmis:repositoryRelationship>self</cmis:repositoryRelationship>
  ...
  <cmis:capabilities>
    <cmis:capabilityMultifiling>true</cmis:capabilityMultifiling>
    <cmis:capabilityUnfiling>true</cmis:capabilityUnfiling>
    <cmis:capabilityVersionSpecificFiling>true</cmis:capabilityVersionSpecificFiling>
    ...
    <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeDocuments</cmis:capabilityChanges>
    <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeFolders</cmis:capabilityChanges>
    <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeRelationships</cmis:capabilityChanges>
    ...
    <cmis:changesIncomplete>true</cmis:changesIncomplete>
  </cmis:capabilities>
  <cmis:cmisVersionSupported>0.61</cmis:cmisVersionSupported>
</cmis:repositoryInfo>

>From a purely client perspective this is a little awkward.

This first issue is mixing properties and capabilities. This requires a little more than it should because the properties are simple while capabilities is complex element. Perhaps something like this.

<cmis:repositoryInfo>
  <cmis:properties>
    <cmis:property name="repositoryId">repid1</cmis:property>
    <cmis:property name="repositoryName">Repository1</cmis:property>
    <cmis:property name="repositoryRelationship">self</cmis:property>
    ...
  </cmis:properties>
  <cmis:capabilities>
    <cmis:capability name="Multifiling">true</cmis:capability>
    <cmis:capability name="Unfiling">true</cmis:capability>
    <cmis:capability name="VersionSpecificFiling">true</cmis:capability>
    ...
  </cmis:capabilities>
</cmis:repositoryInfo>

Of course I don't mind if the element names stay the same (<cmis:repositoryId/>). It just seems like it is less flexible and more difficult to marshal/unmarshal.

The second issue is the changes capability. It would be nice if this was either a multi valued element, separate of the simple capabilities, or turned into individual properties.

<cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeDocuments>true|false</cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeDocuments>
<cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeFolders>true|false</cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeFolders>

- or -

<cmis:capabilityChanges>
  <cmis:includeDocuments>true|false</cmis:includeDocuments>
  <cmis:iIncludeFolders>true|false</cmis:iIncludeFolders>
</cmis:capabilityChanges>

- or -

<cmis:capabilityChanges>includeDocuments, includeFoldes</cmis:capabilityChanges>

- or - 

<cmis:repositoryInfo>
  <cmis:properties>
    ...
  </cmis:properties>
  <cmis:capabilities>
    ...
  </cmis:capabilities>
  <cmis:changes>
    <cmis:includeDocuments>true|false</cmis:includeDocuments>
    <cmis:iIncludeFolders>true|false</cmis:iIncludeFolders>
  </cmis:changes>
</cmis:repositoryInfo>


None of these things are that big of a deal it is just that I find myself writing unnecessary code in order to handle them. I figure most of the people on the list are actively involved in the spec and I'd be interested in any thoughts you guys have to share.

Thanks,
Shane

Re: thoughts on spec

Posted by Michael Marth <mm...@day.com>.

Hi Shane,

the changes you suggest make a lot of sense to me, the format would be much
easier to parse and evolve in the future I think (I do not have enough
understanding of the spec to judge the overall impact, though).

One minor thing I thought about the last example - how about this:

<cmis:repositoryInfo>
 <cmis:properties>
   ...
 </cmis:properties>
 <cmis:capabilities>
   ...
 </cmis:capabilities>
 <cmis:changes>
   <cmis:change name="includeDocuments">true|false</cmis:change>
   <cmis:change name="includeFolders">true|false</cmis:change>
 </cmis:changes>
</cmis:repositoryInfo>

br
Michael


On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 11:51 PM, Shane Johnson <sj...@citytechinc.com>wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> I have a few thoughts regarding the CMIS specification that came about
> while working on unit tests. Right now I'm just focusing on the repository
> info.
>
> <cmis:repositoryInfo>
>  <cmis:repositoryId>repid1</cmis:repositoryId>
>  <cmis:repositoryName>Repository1</cmis:repositoryName>
>  <cmis:repositoryRelationship>self</cmis:repositoryRelationship>
>  ...
>  <cmis:capabilities>
>    <cmis:capabilityMultifiling>true</cmis:capabilityMultifiling>
>    <cmis:capabilityUnfiling>true</cmis:capabilityUnfiling>
>
>  <cmis:capabilityVersionSpecificFiling>true</cmis:capabilityVersionSpecificFiling>
>    ...
>    <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeDocuments</cmis:capabilityChanges>
>    <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeFolders</cmis:capabilityChanges>
>    <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeRelationships</cmis:capabilityChanges>
>    ...
>    <cmis:changesIncomplete>true</cmis:changesIncomplete>
>  </cmis:capabilities>
>  <cmis:cmisVersionSupported>0.61</cmis:cmisVersionSupported>
> </cmis:repositoryInfo>
>
> From a purely client perspective this is a little awkward.
>
> This first issue is mixing properties and capabilities. This requires a
> little more than it should because the properties are simple while
> capabilities is complex element. Perhaps something like this.
>
> <cmis:repositoryInfo>
>  <cmis:properties>
>    <cmis:property name="repositoryId">repid1</cmis:property>
>    <cmis:property name="repositoryName">Repository1</cmis:property>
>    <cmis:property name="repositoryRelationship">self</cmis:property>
>    ...
>  </cmis:properties>
>  <cmis:capabilities>
>    <cmis:capability name="Multifiling">true</cmis:capability>
>    <cmis:capability name="Unfiling">true</cmis:capability>
>    <cmis:capability name="VersionSpecificFiling">true</cmis:capability>
>    ...
>  </cmis:capabilities>
> </cmis:repositoryInfo>
>
> Of course I don't mind if the element names stay the same
> (<cmis:repositoryId/>). It just seems like it is less flexible and more
> difficult to marshal/unmarshal.
>
> The second issue is the changes capability. It would be nice if this was
> either a multi valued element, separate of the simple capabilities, or
> turned into individual properties.
>
>
> <cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeDocuments>true|false</cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeDocuments>
>
> <cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeFolders>true|false</cmis:capabilityChangesIncludeFolders>
>
> - or -
>
> <cmis:capabilityChanges>
>  <cmis:includeDocuments>true|false</cmis:includeDocuments>
>  <cmis:iIncludeFolders>true|false</cmis:iIncludeFolders>
> </cmis:capabilityChanges>
>
> - or -
>
> <cmis:capabilityChanges>includeDocuments,
> includeFoldes</cmis:capabilityChanges>
>
> - or -
>
> <cmis:repositoryInfo>
>  <cmis:properties>
>    ...
>  </cmis:properties>
>  <cmis:capabilities>
>    ...
>  </cmis:capabilities>
>  <cmis:changes>
>    <cmis:includeDocuments>true|false</cmis:includeDocuments>
>    <cmis:iIncludeFolders>true|false</cmis:iIncludeFolders>
>  </cmis:changes>
> </cmis:repositoryInfo>
>
>
> None of these things are that big of a deal it is just that I find myself
> writing unnecessary code in order to handle them. I figure most of the
> people on the list are actively involved in the spec and I'd be interested
> in any thoughts you guys have to share.
>
> Thanks,
> Shane
>



-- 
Michael Marth | http://dev.day.com/