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

Posted to dev@chemistry.apache.org by Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> on 2013/08/08 12:48:53 UTC

[DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

 Hi all,

 We've made several bug fixes and a few enhancements to OpenCMIS in the 
 last few weeks.
 What do you think about an OpenCMIS 0.10.0 release?


 Thanks,

 Florian

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>.

Sounds good to me Gab.

Florian and I will go through the remaining topics and come up with a
suggestion how to proceed with the 1.0 release.

Jens


On 13.08.13 11:00, "Gabriele Columbro" <co...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> How about this:
>> We release 0.10.0 now, compile a road map, publish it and work on v1.0.
>>
>
>That seems a valid approach to me, as allow us to move on and because
>tasks
>can be easily parallelized.
>
>I will work and push out 0.10.0 as is for vote anyway and potentially
>complete the release this week. For the record, also because I feel a bit
>guilty for not having found time to push out 0.9.1 (and the WSDL major
>fixes coming with it) in due time...
>
>Still, I think Peter points are very spot on, and I this we should release
>1.0 very soon.
>
>So, in parallel, Florian can take the lead on discussing the roadmap in
>Jira / email / website. I have a couple of things myself I want to do from
>a release cleanup / handover standpoint for 1.0 so would be good to
>timebox
>1.0 and see what is possible.
>
>Deal? :)
>
>Thanks,
>
>Gab
>
>
>> Florian
>>
>>
>>
>>  G'day Florian,
>>>
>>> Yeah *I* understand that OpenCMIS is production grade - I've
>>> explicitly chosen to use it in several Alfresco products that I
>>> manage.  The problem is when I deliver that message to other
>>> prospective implementers it sometimes falls on deaf ears.
>>>
>>> Having the explanation below, or Dieter's quote, or similar may help
>>> such implementers to decide in favour of OpenCMIS.  Having a v1.0
>>> would be more effective.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Hi Peter,
>>>>
>>>> OpenCMIS consists of multiple more or less independent parts. The
>>>> "serious flaw" was that the client library couldn't connect to a Web
>>>> Service endpoint anymore. That doesn't touch the server framework or
>>>>the
>>>> InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
>>>> Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't
>>>>work
>>>> out. But that shouldn't stop us from improving other areas.
>>>>
>>>> OpenCMIS is used in many open source and commercial products and
>>>> productive scenarios today. But the JavaDoc could be improved and
>>>>some code
>>>> areas could need some more comments and clean up to make it better
>>>> maintainable. I think 'high quality' is also defined by these things.
>>>>Till
>>>> now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> CMIS 1.1) and
>>>>correct.
>>>> Personally, I would like to address the documentation and
>>>> maintainability areas before we release v1.0, even if it doesn't
>>>>change any
>>>> APIs and we could theoretically do this after v1.0 is released. But
>>>>that's
>>>> only my opinion. It should be a community decision.
>>>>
>>>> Apart from that, I guess OpenCMIS development will not stop for a long
>>>> time. At least the TCK will grow. But I can also envision support for
>>>>more
>>>> authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific adaptations
>>>>for
>>>> certain environments (application servers, enterprise service buses,
>>>>JAX-WS
>>>> implementations, etc.).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> - Florian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>>>>> TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes
>>>>> for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more
>>>>> conservative, fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to
>>>>> rush." concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3
>>>>>years
>>>>> ago and the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable,
>>>>> reliable client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not
>>>>>an
>>>>> official CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by
>>>>> this lack.
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS
>>>>> sub-project though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client
>>>>> libraries, or is it more around client library experimentation?
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS)
>>>>>>between
>>>>>> now and November that once completed will give me more confidence
>>>>>>as well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jay Brown
>>>>>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>>>>>> IBM Software Group
>>>>>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that
>>>>>>this
>>>>>> is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one
>>>>>>0.9 had
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Date:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Subject:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which
>>>>>> made us
>>>>>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>>>>>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality
>>>>>> of a
>>>>>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple
>>>>>>of
>>>>>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and
>>>>>>stable.
>>>>>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of
>>>>>> classes.
>>>>>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of
>>>>>>minor
>>>>>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>>>>>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>>>>>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will
>>>>>> hesitate
>>>>>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new
>>>>>>functionality
>>>>>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my 2 cents
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jens
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>>>>>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full
>>>>>> steam
>>>>>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great
>>>>>>if
>>>>>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >- Florian
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing
>>>>>> whatever's
>>>>>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes
>>>>>> etc.
>>>>>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either)
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>>>>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can
>>>>>> tell).
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>>> >> Peter
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org>
>>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>>>>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do
>>>>>>that.
>>>>>> Any
>>>>>> >>>opinions?
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it
>>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some
>>>>>> places
>>>>>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>>>>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>> - Florian
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>
>>>>>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>>>>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version
>>>>>> bump?
>>>>>> >>>>
>>>>>> >>>> Nick
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>> >>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
>
>-- 
>Gabriele Columbro
>Principal Architect, Consulting Services
>Alfresco Software <http://www.alfresco.com>
>twitter: @mindthegabz <http://twitter.com/#%21/mindthegabz>
>blog: http://mindthegab.com
>mobile: +31627565013

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Gabriele Columbro <co...@gmail.com>.

On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:

> How about this:
> We release 0.10.0 now, compile a road map, publish it and work on v1.0.
>

That seems a valid approach to me, as allow us to move on and because tasks
can be easily parallelized.

I will work and push out 0.10.0 as is for vote anyway and potentially
complete the release this week. For the record, also because I feel a bit
guilty for not having found time to push out 0.9.1 (and the WSDL major
fixes coming with it) in due time...

Still, I think Peter points are very spot on, and I this we should release
1.0 very soon.

So, in parallel, Florian can take the lead on discussing the roadmap in
Jira / email / website. I have a couple of things myself I want to do from
a release cleanup / handover standpoint for 1.0 so would be good to timebox
1.0 and see what is possible.

Deal? :)

Thanks,

Gab


> Florian
>
>
>
>  G'day Florian,
>>
>> Yeah *I* understand that OpenCMIS is production grade - I've
>> explicitly chosen to use it in several Alfresco products that I
>> manage.  The problem is when I deliver that message to other
>> prospective implementers it sometimes falls on deaf ears.
>>
>> Having the explanation below, or Dieter's quote, or similar may help
>> such implementers to decide in favour of OpenCMIS.  Having a v1.0
>> would be more effective.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>  Hi Peter,
>>>
>>> OpenCMIS consists of multiple more or less independent parts. The
>>> "serious flaw" was that the client library couldn't connect to a Web
>>> Service endpoint anymore. That doesn't touch the server framework or the
>>> InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
>>> Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't work
>>> out. But that shouldn't stop us from improving other areas.
>>>
>>> OpenCMIS is used in many open source and commercial products and
>>> productive scenarios today. But the JavaDoc could be improved and some code
>>> areas could need some more comments and clean up to make it better
>>> maintainable. I think 'high quality' is also defined by these things. Till
>>> now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> CMIS 1.1) and correct.
>>> Personally, I would like to address the documentation and
>>> maintainability areas before we release v1.0, even if it doesn't change any
>>> APIs and we could theoretically do this after v1.0 is released. But that's
>>> only my opinion. It should be a community decision.
>>>
>>> Apart from that, I guess OpenCMIS development will not stop for a long
>>> time. At least the TCK will grow. But I can also envision support for more
>>> authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific adaptations for
>>> certain environments (application servers, enterprise service buses, JAX-WS
>>> implementations, etc.).
>>>
>>>
>>> - Florian
>>>
>>>
>>>  If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>>>> TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes
>>>> for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more
>>>> conservative, fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>>>>
>>>> Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to
>>>> rush." concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years
>>>> ago and the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable,
>>>> reliable client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an
>>>> official CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by
>>>> this lack.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS
>>>> sub-project though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client
>>>> libraries, or is it more around client library experimentation?
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Peter
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>>>>>
>>>>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between
>>>>> now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as well.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay Brown
>>>>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>>>>> IBM Software Group
>>>>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>>>>>
>>>>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this
>>>>> is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> From:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> To:
>>>>>
>>>>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>>>>>
>>>>> Date:
>>>>>
>>>>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>>>>>
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>>
>>>>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>>>>>
>>>>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which
>>>>> made us
>>>>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>>>>>
>>>>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>>>>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality
>>>>> of a
>>>>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
>>>>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
>>>>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of
>>>>> classes.
>>>>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
>>>>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>>>>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>>>>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will
>>>>> hesitate
>>>>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for
>>>>> the
>>>>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
>>>>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>>>>>
>>>>> Just my 2 cents
>>>>>
>>>>> Jens
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>>>>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full
>>>>> steam
>>>>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>>>>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >- Florian
>>>>> >
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing
>>>>> whatever's
>>>>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes
>>>>> etc.
>>>>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either)
>>>>> from
>>>>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>>>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can
>>>>> tell).
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>>> >> Peter
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>>>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that.
>>>>> Any
>>>>> >>>opinions?
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it
>>>>> sufficiently
>>>>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some
>>>>> places
>>>>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>>>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>> - Florian
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>
>>>>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>>>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version
>>>>> bump?
>>>>> >>>>
>>>>> >>>> Nick
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>


-- 
Gabriele Columbro
Principal Architect, Consulting Services
Alfresco Software <http://www.alfresco.com>
twitter: @mindthegabz <http://twitter.com/#%21/mindthegabz>
blog: http://mindthegab.com
mobile: +31627565013

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org>.

 How about this:
 We release 0.10.0 now, compile a road map, publish it and work on v1.0.

 Florian


> G'day Florian,
>
> Yeah *I* understand that OpenCMIS is production grade - I've
> explicitly chosen to use it in several Alfresco products that I
> manage.  The problem is when I deliver that message to other
> prospective implementers it sometimes falls on deaf ears.
>
> Having the explanation below, or Dieter's quote, or similar may help
> such implementers to decide in favour of OpenCMIS.  Having a v1.0
> would be more effective.
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> Hi Peter,
>>
>> OpenCMIS consists of multiple more or less independent parts. The 
>> "serious flaw" was that the client library couldn't connect to a Web 
>> Service endpoint anymore. That doesn't touch the server framework or 
>> the InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
>> Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't 
>> work out. But that shouldn't stop us from improving other areas.
>>
>> OpenCMIS is used in many open source and commercial products and 
>> productive scenarios today. But the JavaDoc could be improved and some 
>> code areas could need some more comments and clean up to make it 
>> better maintainable. I think 'high quality' is also defined by these 
>> things. Till now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> 
>> CMIS 1.1) and correct.
>> Personally, I would like to address the documentation and 
>> maintainability areas before we release v1.0, even if it doesn't 
>> change any APIs and we could theoretically do this after v1.0 is 
>> released. But that's only my opinion. It should be a community 
>> decision.
>>
>> Apart from that, I guess OpenCMIS development will not stop for a 
>> long time. At least the TCK will grow. But I can also envision support 
>> for more authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific 
>> adaptations for certain environments (application servers, enterprise 
>> service buses, JAX-WS implementations, etc.).
>>
>>
>> - Florian
>>
>>
>>> If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>>> TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes 
>>> "changes
>>> for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more
>>> conservative, fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>>>
>>> Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to
>>> rush." concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 
>>> years
>>> ago and the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable,
>>> reliable client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not 
>>> an
>>> official CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by
>>> this lack.
>>>
>>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS
>>> sub-project though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client
>>> libraries, or is it more around client library experimentation?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>>>>
>>>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) 
>>>> between now and November that once completed will give me more 
>>>> confidence as well.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jay Brown
>>>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>>>> IBM Software Group
>>>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>>>>
>>>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that 
>>>> this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous 
>>>> one 0.9 had
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> From:
>>>>
>>>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>>>>
>>>> To:
>>>>
>>>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>>>>
>>>> Date:
>>>>
>>>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>>>>
>>>> Subject:
>>>>
>>>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>>>>
>>>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which 
>>>> made us
>>>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>>>>
>>>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and 
>>>> a
>>>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core 
>>>> functionality of a
>>>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a 
>>>> couple of
>>>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and 
>>>> stable.
>>>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of 
>>>> classes.
>>>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of 
>>>> minor
>>>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>>>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>>>>
>>>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 
>>>> 1.0
>>>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will 
>>>> hesitate
>>>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>>>>
>>>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release 
>>>> for the
>>>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new 
>>>> functionality
>>>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>>>>
>>>> Just my 2 cents
>>>>
>>>> Jens
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut 
>>>> a
>>>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full 
>>>> steam
>>>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>>>> >
>>>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great 
>>>> if
>>>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >- Florian
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing 
>>>> whatever's
>>>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug 
>>>> fixes etc.
>>>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero 
>>>> either) from
>>>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can 
>>>> tell).
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Cheers,
>>>> >> Peter
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> 
>>>> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do 
>>>> that. Any
>>>> >>>opinions?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it 
>>>> sufficiently
>>>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also 
>>>> some places
>>>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> - Florian
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the 
>>>> version bump?
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Nick
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Peter Monks <pm...@alfresco.com>.

G'day Florian,

Yeah *I* understand that OpenCMIS is production grade - I've explicitly chosen to use it in several Alfresco products that I manage.  The problem is when I deliver that message to other prospective implementers it sometimes falls on deaf ears.

Having the explanation below, or Dieter's quote, or similar may help such implementers to decide in favour of OpenCMIS.  Having a v1.0 would be more effective.

Cheers,
Peter



 
 


On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> OpenCMIS consists of multiple more or less independent parts. The "serious flaw" was that the client library couldn't connect to a Web Service endpoint anymore. That doesn't touch the server framework or the InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
> Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't work out. But that shouldn't stop us from improving other areas.
> 
> OpenCMIS is used in many open source and commercial products and productive scenarios today. But the JavaDoc could be improved and some code areas could need some more comments and clean up to make it better maintainable. I think 'high quality' is also defined by these things. Till now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> CMIS 1.1) and correct.
> Personally, I would like to address the documentation and maintainability areas before we release v1.0, even if it doesn't change any APIs and we could theoretically do this after v1.0 is released. But that's only my opinion. It should be a community decision.
> 
> Apart from that, I guess OpenCMIS development will not stop for a long time. At least the TCK will grow. But I can also envision support for more authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific adaptations for certain environments (application servers, enterprise service buses, JAX-WS implementations, etc.).
> 
> 
> - Florian
> 
> 
>> If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>> TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes
>> for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more
>> conservative, fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>> 
>> Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to
>> rush." concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years
>> ago and the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable,
>> reliable client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an
>> official CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by
>> this lack.
>> 
>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS
>> sub-project though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client
>> libraries, or is it more around client library experimentation?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>>> 
>>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as well.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jay Brown
>>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>>> IBM Software Group
>>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>>> 
>>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From:
>>> 
>>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>>> 
>>> To:
>>> 
>>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>>> 
>>> Date:
>>> 
>>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>>> 
>>> Subject:
>>> 
>>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>>> 
>>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made us
>>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>>> 
>>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of a
>>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
>>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
>>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes.
>>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
>>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>>> 
>>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
>>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>>> 
>>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
>>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
>>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>>> 
>>> Just my 2 cents
>>> 
>>> Jens
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
>>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>>> >
>>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >- Florian
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing whatever's
>>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes etc.
>>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) from
>>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can tell).
>>> >>
>>> >> Cheers,
>>> >> Peter
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that. Any
>>> >>>opinions?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it sufficiently
>>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some places
>>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> - Florian
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version bump?
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Nick
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org>.

 Hi Peter,

 OpenCMIS consists of multiple more or less independent parts. The 
 "serious flaw" was that the client library couldn't connect to a Web 
 Service endpoint anymore. That doesn't touch the server framework or the 
 InMemory repository or the common parser classes or anything else.
 Unfortunately, releasing OpenCMIS 0.9.1 as a bug fix release didn't 
 work out. But that shouldn't stop us from improving other areas.

 OpenCMIS is used in many open source and commercial products and 
 productive scenarios today. But the JavaDoc could be improved and some 
 code areas could need some more comments and clean up to make it better 
 maintainable. I think 'high quality' is also defined by these things. 
 Till now we have focused on making it feature complete (-> CMIS 1.1) and 
 correct.
 Personally, I would like to address the documentation and 
 maintainability areas before we release v1.0, even if it doesn't change 
 any APIs and we could theoretically do this after v1.0 is released. But 
 that's only my opinion. It should be a community decision.

 Apart from that, I guess OpenCMIS development will not stop for a long 
 time. At least the TCK will grow. But I can also envision support for 
 more authentication methods (for example OAuth) and specific adaptations 
 for certain environments (application servers, enterprise service buses, 
 JAX-WS implementations, etc.).


 - Florian


> If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
> TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes
> for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more
> conservative, fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>
> Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to
> rush." concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 
> years
> ago and the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable,
> reliable client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not 
> an
> official CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by
> this lack.
>
> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS
> sub-project though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client
> libraries, or is it more around client library experimentation?
>
> Cheers,
> Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>>
>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) 
>> between now and November that once completed will give me more 
>> confidence as well.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Jay Brown
>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>> IBM Software Group
>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>>
>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that 
>> this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 
>> 0.9 had
>>
>>
>> From:
>>
>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>>
>> To:
>>
>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>>
>> Date:
>>
>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>>
>> Subject:
>>
>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>>
>>
>>
>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>>
>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which 
>> made us
>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>>
>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality 
>> of a
>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple 
>> of
>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and 
>> stable.
>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of 
>> classes.
>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of 
>> minor
>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>>
>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will 
>> hesitate
>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>>
>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for 
>> the
>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new 
>> functionality
>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>>
>> Just my 2 cents
>>
>> Jens
>>
>>
>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full 
>> steam
>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>> >
>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great 
>> if
>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>> >
>> >
>> >- Florian
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing 
>> whatever's
>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes 
>> etc.
>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) 
>> from
>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can 
>> tell).
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Peter
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> 
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do 
>> that. Any
>> >>>opinions?
>> >>>
>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it 
>> sufficiently
>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some 
>> places
>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> - Florian
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version 
>> bump?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nick
>> >>
>> >>
>>
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Peter Monks <pm...@alfresco.com>.

G'day Dieter,

No need to explain open source to me.  ;-)

I'm simply passing on a message I've heard several times from potential implementers.  Perhaps the quote below (or a variation thereof) could be displayed on the homepage?

Cheers,
Peter



 
 


On Aug 12, 2013, at 12:35 AM, "Guendisch, Dieter" <di...@sap.com> wrote:

> Hi Peter,
> 
> I like this statement:
> http://iandunn.name/open-source-values-reflected-in-version-numbering/
> That's why "no reason to rush" can perfectly co-exist with 0.x versions
> being considered stable.
> 
> Regards,
> Dieter
> 
> On 12.08.13 05:15, "Peter Monks" <pm...@alfresco.com> wrote:
> 
>> If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>> TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes for
>> cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more conservative,
>> fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>> 
>> Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to rush."
>> concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years ago and
>> the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable, reliable
>> client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an official
>> CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by this lack.
>> 
>> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS sub-project
>> though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client libraries, or is
>> it more around client library experimentation?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>>> 
>>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between
>>> now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as
>>> well. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Jay Brown
>>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>>> IBM Software Group
>>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>>> 
>>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this
>>> is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From:
>>> 
>>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>>> 
>>> To:
>>> 
>>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>>> 
>>> Date:
>>> 
>>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>>> 
>>> Subject:
>>> 
>>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>>> 
>>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made
>>> us
>>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>>> 
>>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of
>>> a
>>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
>>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
>>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of
>>> classes.
>>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
>>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>>> 
>>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
>>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>>> 
>>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
>>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
>>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>>> 
>>> Just my 2 cents
>>> 
>>> Jens
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>>>> 0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
>>>> on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>>>> 
>>>> Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>>>> some native speakers could support us here.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> - Florian
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing
>>> whatever's
>>>>> necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes
>>> etc.
>>>>> a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either)
>>> from
>>>>> potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>>>> "pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can
>>> tell).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Peter
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>>>>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that.
>>> Any
>>>>>> opinions?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it
>>> sufficiently
>>>>>> covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some
>>> places
>>>>>> that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>>>>> functionality in the near future.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> - Florian
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>>>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>>>>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version
>>> bump?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by "Guendisch, Dieter" <di...@sap.com>.

Hi Peter,

I like this statement:
http://iandunn.name/open-source-values-reflected-in-version-numbering/
That's why "no reason to rush" can perfectly co-exist with 0.x versions
being considered stable.

Regards,
Dieter

On 12.08.13 05:15, "Peter Monks" <pm...@alfresco.com> wrote:

>If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new
>TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes for
>cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more conservative,
>fix-centric approach be more advisable?
>
>Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to rush."
>concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years ago and
>the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable, reliable
>client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an official
>CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by this lack.
>
>Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS sub-project
>though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client libraries, or is
>it more around client library experimentation?
>
>Cheers,
>Peter
>
>
>
> 
> 
>
>
>On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
>> 
>> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between
>>now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as
>>well. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Jay Brown
>> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
>> IBM Software Group
>> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
>> 
>> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this
>>is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had
>> 
>> 
>> From:
>> 
>> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
>> 
>> To:
>> 
>> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
>> 
>> Date:
>> 
>> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
>> 
>> Subject:
>> 
>> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
>> 
>> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made
>>us
>> releasing another version pretty soon.
>> 
>> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
>> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of
>>a
>> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
>> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
>> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of
>>classes.
>> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
>> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
>> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
>> 
>> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
>> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
>> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
>> 
>> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
>> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
>> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
>> 
>> Just my 2 cents
>> 
>> Jens
>> 
>> 
>> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
>> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>> >
>> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>> >some native speakers could support us here.
>> >
>> >
>> >- Florian
>> >
>> >
>> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing
>>whatever's
>> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes
>>etc.
>> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either)
>>from
>> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can
>>tell).
>> >> 
>> >> Cheers,
>> >> Peter
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >>  
>> >>  
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> >> 
>> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that.
>>Any
>> >>>opinions?
>> >>>
>> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it
>>sufficiently
>> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some
>>places
>> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>> >>>functionality in the near future.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> - Florian
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version
>>bump?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Nick
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Peter Monks <pm...@alfresco.com>.

If v0.9 had "serious flaws", I might ask why 0.10.0 adds "a new TypeFactory class and a couple of utility classes" and makes "changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes"?  Wouldn't a more conservative, fix-centric approach be more advisable?

Regardless, I think the comment that "I do not see any reason to rush." concerns me the most.  CMIS v1.0 was released more than 3 years ago and the argument has been made that there still isn't a stable, reliable client library available.  Clearly Apache Chemistry is not an official CMIS client library, but the goals of CMIS are hindered by this lack.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the primary goal of the OpenCMIS sub-project though - is it to provide high quality Java CMIS client libraries, or is it more around client library experimentation?

Cheers,
Peter



 
 


On Aug 9, 2013, at 8:45 AM, Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com> wrote:

> I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.
> 
> I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between now and November that once completed will give me more confidence as well. 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Jay Brown
> Senior Engineer, ECM Development
> IBM Software Group
> jay.brown@us.ibm.com
> 
> "Huebel, Jens" ---08/08/2013 11:37:55 PM---Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release. It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had
> 
> 
> From:
> 
> "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>
> 
> To:
> 
> "dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,
> 
> Date:
> 
> 08/08/2013 11:37 PM
> 
> Subject:
> 
> Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.
> 
> It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made us
> releasing another version pretty soon.
> 
> With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
> couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of a
> server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
> days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
> There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes.
> The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
> importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
> documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.
> 
> Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
> release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
> to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)
> 
> I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
> fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
> since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?
> 
> Just my 2 cents
> 
> Jens
> 
> 
> On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
> >We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
> >0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
> >on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
> >
> >Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
> >some native speakers could support us here.
> >
> >
> >- Florian
> >
> >
> >> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing whatever's
> >>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes etc.
> >>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) from
> >>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
> >>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can tell).
> >> 
> >> Cheers,
> >> Peter
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >>  
> >>  
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> 
> >>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
> >>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that. Any
> >>>opinions?
> >>>
> >>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it sufficiently
> >>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some places
> >>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
> >>>functionality in the near future.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> - Florian
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
> >>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
> >>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version bump?
> >>>>
> >>>> Nick
> >> 
> >> 
> 
> 
>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Jay Brown <ja...@us.ibm.com>.

I agree with Jens.  Make it 0.10.0.  Getting really close though.

I will be doing a fair share of testing (server side OpenCMIS) between now
and November that once completed will give me more confidence as well.






Jay Brown
Senior Engineer, ECM Development
IBM Software Group
jay.brown@us.ibm.com


|------------>
| From:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>                                                                                                                 |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| To:        |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |"dev@chemistry.apache.org" <de...@chemistry.apache.org>,                                                                                            |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Date:      |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |08/08/2013 11:37 PM                                                                                                                               |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|------------>
| Subject:   |
|------------>
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
  |Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0                                                                                                                  |
  >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|





Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.

It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made us
releasing another version pretty soon.

With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of a
server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes.
The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.

Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)

I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?

Just my 2 cents

Jens


On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:

>We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
>on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>
>Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>some native speakers could support us here.
>
>
>- Florian
>
>
>> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing whatever's
>>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes etc.
>>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) from
>>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can tell).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that. Any
>>>opinions?
>>>
>>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it sufficiently
>>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some places
>>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>>functionality in the near future.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Florian
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version bump?
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>>
>>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by "Huebel, Jens" <j....@sap.com>.

Personally I feel that this is 0.10 and not a 1.0 release.

It appeared that the previous one 0.9 had some serious flaws which made us
releasing another version pretty soon.

With the current release we introduced a new TypeFactory class and a
couple of utility classes being essential for the core functionality of a
server if they are in use. This code saw the daylight only a couple of
days ago and definitely needs a proof that it is reliable and stable.
There also have been changes for cleanup spread over hundreds of classes.
The InMemory server is not for production use and therefore is of minor
importance but needs cleanup in some areas. I also feel that the
documentation is not in a 1.0 state yet.

Nothing would be worse for our project than releasing a crippled 1.0
release after years of effort. And Peter I fear your users will hesitate
to use this stuff forever if we run 1.0 into the weeds ;)

I do not see any reason to rush. I agree to target a 1.0 release for the
fall, end-of-year time frame if we do not introduce new functionality
since our last 0.x version. Isn't this good style for any project?

Just my 2 cents

Jens

On 08.08.13 20:23, "Florian Müller" <fm...@apache.org> wrote:

>We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
>0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
>on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.
>
>Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
>some native speakers could support us here.
>
>
>- Florian
>
>
>> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing whatever's
>>necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes etc.
>>a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) from
>>potential users of the library because of a perception that it's
>>"pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can tell).
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Peter
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that. Any
>>>opinions?
>>>
>>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it sufficiently
>>>covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some places
>>>that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major
>>>functionality in the near future.
>>>
>>>
>>> - Florian
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version bump?
>>>>
>>>> Nick
>> 
>>

Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Posted by Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org>.

We can actually do both in parallel. Our release manager can cut a
0.10.0 release. Once we have a release candidate we can work full steam
on 1.0. We don't have to wait for the release process to finish.

Btw. Any help with the JavaDoc is very welcome. It would be great if
some native speakers could support us here.


- Florian


> Thanks Florian.  If a v1.0 is that close, I'd vote for doing whatever's necessary to get it to that point, even if it delays the bug fixes etc. a bit.  I've had a little pushback (not much, but not zero either) from potential users of the library because of a perception that it's "pre-release" (based solely on the version number, as best I can tell).
> 
> Cheers,
> Peter
> 
> 
> 
>  
>  
> 
> 
> On Aug 8, 2013, at 8:32 AM, Florian Müller <fm...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> We have full CMIS 1.1 support now.
>> If the community feels comfortable calling it 1.0 we can do that. Any opinions?
>>
>> I think we should improve the JavaDoc to a point that it sufficiently covers all public APIs and then call it 1.0. There are also some places that need cleaning. But I don't expect that we add any major functionality in the near future.
>>
>>
>> - Florian
>>
>>
>>> On Thu, 8 Aug 2013, Peter Monks wrote:
>>>> +1, but as a side note, what's the gating factor on a v1.0?
>>> Full CMIS v1.1 support might seem a good reason for the version bump?
>>>
>>> Nick
> 
>