You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@chemistry.apache.org by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com> on 2014/03/17 15:02:06 UTC
Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Hi,
As announced earlier today we merged our changes (faster than I thought) and committed them.
Please have a close look to the changes as they also include an incompatible API change: We added a *stop parameter to the progress block of all transmission methods, so that it is possible to abort the transmission. We decided against creating new interfaces with the *stop flag and just modified the exiting ones as creating additional interfaces would basically double all transmission interfaces.
Please let us know if anyone has a different opinion on this topic.
Best Regards,
Lukas
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
Hi Gavin,
I'm preparing the release right now.
So this is the last call for anyone who want's to suspend the release…
Best regards,
Lukas
On 4/1/14 11:19 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
>Hi Lukas,
>
>As you probably saw I committed the extra fixes last night so I think
>we’re now all set for the 0.3 release.
>
>Regards,
>
>Gavin
>
>
>
>On 31 Mar 2014, at 17:03, Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi Lukas,
>>
>> I’m going to retract that statement, we have found some more
>>occurrences of the issue in CMISFolder and a couple in CMISSession.
>>
>> Please continue to hold off the release until tomorrow.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Lukas,
>>>
>>> The issue with cancelling create operations is resolved and the fix
>>>committed.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gavin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:48, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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" <ga...@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
>>>>><ga...@alfresco.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Gavin
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>>>>>><ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>><ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
Hi Lukas,
As you probably saw I committed the extra fixes last night so I think we’re now all set for the 0.3 release.
Regards,
Gavin
On 31 Mar 2014, at 17:03, Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
>
> I’m going to retract that statement, we have found some more occurrences of the issue in CMISFolder and a couple in CMISSession.
>
> Please continue to hold off the release until tomorrow.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Lukas,
>>
>> The issue with cancelling create operations is resolved and the fix committed.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:48, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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" <ga...@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 <ga...@alfresco.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Gavin
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
Hi Lukas,
I’m going to retract that statement, we have found some more occurrences of the issue in CMISFolder and a couple in CMISSession.
Please continue to hold off the release until tomorrow.
Regards,
Gavin
On 31 Mar 2014, at 16:40, Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> Hi Lukas,
>
> The issue with cancelling create operations is resolved and the fix committed.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
> On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:48, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
>
>> 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" <ga...@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 <ga...@alfresco.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Gavin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
Hi Lukas,
The issue with cancelling create operations is resolved and the fix committed.
Regards,
Gavin
On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:48, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
> 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" <ga...@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 <ga...@alfresco.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Gavin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
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" <ga...@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 <ga...@alfresco.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>>
>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>><ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>><ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
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 <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
>
> Regards,
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
Hi,
Sounds great, many thanks Lukas.
Regards,
Gavin
On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>>> <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
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" <ga...@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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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"
>>>>>>>>><ga...@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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
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 <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
Hi,
Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn’t anything else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday tomorrow so I’ll send a response tomorrow if that’s OK?
If you don’t 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’m 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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>>
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
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" <ga...@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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>>
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
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 <lu...@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" <ga...@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
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
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" <ga...@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
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
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
> On 19 Mar 2014, at 13:00, "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> we added the stop flag because it looked to us as the right place to do this. I didn't think about canceling the request via the object. I tested it and it also seems to work. We could remove the stop flag again or leave it (as this is a common paradigm also in other iOS methods) - what is your opinion on that?
>
> We added the secondary object type support because we needed it in our application. However there are still things to do to support the 1.1 atom binding. For the complete list of missing features you should look into the Open CMIS library.
>
> Good to hear that you are also looking into browser binding! We also have a heavy demand for that to make the app faster and we plan to implement browser binding during the next months. It would be great if you create a branch and share your current status with us. We could then decide how to proceed. Maybe we can split the workload :) We should also think of restarting the sync meeting session or use another channel to coordinate browser binding implementation if we do this together.
>
> Regards,
> Lukas
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:58 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I did have one question regarding the new *stop parameter, I’m just curious why the stop parameter was required when we already have a mechanism (via the CMISRequest object) to cancel running operations?
>>
>> Thanks very much for adding secondary type support too, we were planning on doing that as well some point soon. I presume this was to support the 1.1 binding? Do you know what else we need to do in order to support a 1.1 atom binding?
>>
>> Finally, as I background project I have started looking at the browser binding, I have some *very* early support for the browser binding on my machine. I was thinking of creating a branch for this once the initial commit is ready as it is going to require some minor moving and renaming of files. Does any have any objection to the creation of a branch?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Gavin
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 15:36, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I fixed the project file (missing files) and added some fixes so that all tests are green again.
>>> BTW: Please ignore my comment (below) about the incompatible changes (I've made them some time ago) we currently still support the old interfaces, however we can discuss if we want to get rid of them for 0.3 or if we want to keep them for simple use cases.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Lukas
>>>
>>>
>>> From: <Gross>, Lukas Gross <lu...@sap.com>>
>>> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:02 PM
>>> To: "dev@chemistry.apache.org<ma...@chemistry.apache.org>" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>>
>>> Subject: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> As announced earlier today we merged our changes (faster than I thought) and committed them.
>>> Please have a close look to the changes as they also include an incompatible API change: We added a *stop parameter to the progress block of all transmission methods, so that it is possible to abort the transmission. We decided against creating new interfaces with the *stop flag and just modified the exiting ones as creating additional interfaces would basically double all transmission interfaces.
>>> Please let us know if anyone has a different opinion on this topic.
>>>
>>> Best Regards,
>>> Lukas
>>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
Hi,
we added the stop flag because it looked to us as the right place to do this. I didn't think about canceling the request via the object. I tested it and it also seems to work. We could remove the stop flag again or leave it (as this is a common paradigm also in other iOS methods) - what is your opinion on that?
We added the secondary object type support because we needed it in our application. However there are still things to do to support the 1.1 atom binding. For the complete list of missing features you should look into the Open CMIS library.
Good to hear that you are also looking into browser binding! We also have a heavy demand for that to make the app faster and we plan to implement browser binding during the next months. It would be great if you create a branch and share your current status with us. We could then decide how to proceed. Maybe we can split the workload :) We should also think of restarting the sync meeting session or use another channel to coordinate browser binding implementation if we do this together.
Regards,
Lukas
Sent from my iPad
> On Mar 17, 2014, at 9:58 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <ga...@alfresco.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I did have one question regarding the new *stop parameter, I’m just curious why the stop parameter was required when we already have a mechanism (via the CMISRequest object) to cancel running operations?
>
> Thanks very much for adding secondary type support too, we were planning on doing that as well some point soon. I presume this was to support the 1.1 binding? Do you know what else we need to do in order to support a 1.1 atom binding?
>
> Finally, as I background project I have started looking at the browser binding, I have some *very* early support for the browser binding on my machine. I was thinking of creating a branch for this once the initial commit is ready as it is going to require some minor moving and renaming of files. Does any have any objection to the creation of a branch?
>
> Regards,
>
> Gavin
>
>
>
>> On 17 Mar 2014, at 15:36, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I fixed the project file (missing files) and added some fixes so that all tests are green again.
>> BTW: Please ignore my comment (below) about the incompatible changes (I've made them some time ago) we currently still support the old interfaces, however we can discuss if we want to get rid of them for 0.3 or if we want to keep them for simple use cases.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Lukas
>>
>>
>> From: <Gross>, Lukas Gross <lu...@sap.com>>
>> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:02 PM
>> To: "dev@chemistry.apache.org<ma...@chemistry.apache.org>" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>>
>> Subject: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> As announced earlier today we merged our changes (faster than I thought) and committed them.
>> Please have a close look to the changes as they also include an incompatible API change: We added a *stop parameter to the progress block of all transmission methods, so that it is possible to abort the transmission. We decided against creating new interfaces with the *stop flag and just modified the exiting ones as creating additional interfaces would basically double all transmission interfaces.
>> Please let us know if anyone has a different opinion on this topic.
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Lukas
>
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by Gavin Cornwell <ga...@alfresco.com>.
Hi,
I did have one question regarding the new *stop parameter, I’m just curious why the stop parameter was required when we already have a mechanism (via the CMISRequest object) to cancel running operations?
Thanks very much for adding secondary type support too, we were planning on doing that as well some point soon. I presume this was to support the 1.1 binding? Do you know what else we need to do in order to support a 1.1 atom binding?
Finally, as I background project I have started looking at the browser binding, I have some *very* early support for the browser binding on my machine. I was thinking of creating a branch for this once the initial commit is ready as it is going to require some minor moving and renaming of files. Does any have any objection to the creation of a branch?
Regards,
Gavin
On 17 Mar 2014, at 15:36, Gross, Lukas <lu...@sap.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I fixed the project file (missing files) and added some fixes so that all tests are green again.
> BTW: Please ignore my comment (below) about the incompatible changes (I've made them some time ago) we currently still support the old interfaces, however we can discuss if we want to get rid of them for 0.3 or if we want to keep them for simple use cases.
>
> Best Regards,
> Lukas
>
>
> From: <Gross>, Lukas Gross <lu...@sap.com>>
> Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:02 PM
> To: "dev@chemistry.apache.org<ma...@chemistry.apache.org>" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>>
> Subject: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
>
> Hi,
>
> As announced earlier today we merged our changes (faster than I thought) and committed them.
> Please have a close look to the changes as they also include an incompatible API change: We added a *stop parameter to the progress block of all transmission methods, so that it is possible to abort the transmission. We decided against creating new interfaces with the *stop flag and just modified the exiting ones as creating additional interfaces would basically double all transmission interfaces.
> Please let us know if anyone has a different opinion on this topic.
>
> Best Regards,
> Lukas
Re: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Posted by "Gross, Lukas" <lu...@sap.com>.
Hi,
I fixed the project file (missing files) and added some fixes so that all tests are green again.
BTW: Please ignore my comment (below) about the incompatible changes (I've made them some time ago) we currently still support the old interfaces, however we can discuss if we want to get rid of them for 0.3 or if we want to keep them for simple use cases.
Best Regards,
Lukas
From: <Gross>, Lukas Gross <lu...@sap.com>>
Date: Monday, March 17, 2014 3:02 PM
To: "dev@chemistry.apache.org<ma...@chemistry.apache.org>" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>>
Subject: Commits to ObjectiveCMIS
Hi,
As announced earlier today we merged our changes (faster than I thought) and committed them.
Please have a close look to the changes as they also include an incompatible API change: We added a *stop parameter to the progress block of all transmission methods, so that it is possible to abort the transmission. We decided against creating new interfaces with the *stop flag and just modified the exiting ones as creating additional interfaces would basically double all transmission interfaces.
Please let us know if anyone has a different opinion on this topic.
Best Regards,
Lukas