On 2 Dec 2008, at 20:04, Dominique Pfister wrote:
-- + rest
+ ws
Just as an observation, I think it's insane having two different
protocols for this standard. It sounds like two factions in the
standards group that could never agree.
--
Torgeir Veimo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
After having had a first look at the CMIS specification, I decided to
start off with the jcr-cmis implementation. I therefore created a
jcr-cmis sandbox with the following initial structure:
jcr-cmis
-- + server
+ rest
+ ws
I intend to start working on the server/rest subtree
Dominique Pfister wrote:
Hi,
After having had a first look at the CMIS specification, I decided to
start off with the jcr-cmis implementation. I therefore created a
jcr-cmis sandbox with the following initial structure:
jcr-cmis
-- + server
+ rest
+ ws
I intend to start working
Also, I don't think we should implement any of the HTTP
extensions in the AtomPub binding -- they are neither
necessary nor desirable. We should show the TC how to
implement it right, not just implement whatever they suggest.
very good point!
this also puts us into a good position to file
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 8:24 AM, David Nuescheler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If there are existing Apache committers from other projects who'd be
interested in working on this, then we could simplify things by
opening write access in the Jackrabbit sandbox to all Apache
committers.
Hi,
As an informal rule I'd still expect external committers
who choose to commit to our sandbox to be subscribed on dev@ and to
follow at least the relevant parts of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OK, Jukka. I've been following dev@ for several months ;-) and I've
just subscribed on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi Jukka,
Most of the organizations on the technical committee of CMIS
are already heavily involved at Apache either as contributors or as
sponsors and are also on the JCR expert group.
If there are existing Apache committers from other projects who'd be
interested in working on this, then
hi julian,
thanks for your comments.
...
Since functionally the CMIS specification is a subset of the
JCR specification it allows a very simple and straight-forward mapping to
a fully compliant JCR repository such as Jackrabbit.
...
Yes, the more challenging part is the mapping *from* a
David Nuescheler wrote:
...
Since functionally the CMIS specification is a subset of the
JCR specification it allows a very simple and straight-forward mapping to
a fully compliant JCR repository such as Jackrabbit.
...
Yes, the more challenging part is the mapping *from* a JCR repository
Hi all,
I am currently working in a technical committee on OASIS defining a
document management interoperability specification called CMIS [1].
CMIS shoots for a protocol level interoperability between applications
and various repository vendors.
The specification is in a very early stage and a
David,
thanks for this. From the peanut gallery (Troy McLure moment: hi
Jackrabbits, you might remember me for being an initial mentor of
Jackrabbit, and being dragged away since graduation, yet keeping a
place in my heart for the project) I have been both interested and
quite skeptical about
David Nuescheler schrieb:
Hi all,
I am currently working in a technical committee on OASIS defining a
document management interoperability specification called CMIS [1].
CMIS shoots for a protocol level interoperability between applications
and various repository vendors.
The specification is
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 7:17 PM, David Nuescheler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Similar to the existing protocol layers (webdav etc) on top of
JCR that are already part of Jackrabbit, I would like to propose
that we initiate first tests with an implementation in a sandbox
project.
Sounds
Hi all,
2 words about me. working for Sourcesense, committer of Apache POI
implementing the Open XML format support, very close to the CM world,
in particular to JCR; I have been also working on Alfresco for a
couple of years.
I am very excited by this thread, since I am one of those hoping that
14 matches
Mail list logo
