Hi Carlo,
Please go ahead and make a proposal. Submit a patch that sketches your
ideas. It doesn't have to be complete and running.
It's easier to talk about something concrete rather than discussing
about generic topics.
- Florian
Hi Florian,
it's not my intent to start a flame war, and we can continue offline
if you
want. To the interest of the list, I'll just write here some of the
reasons
behind my previous comment, and wait until I have some patch ready to
prove
my points before bothering you guys again with my ramblings.
I understand your remark on the spec compliance, and that interop is
at
stake when you allow the protocol details to be modified. BUT...
- There's much more to HTTP than what CMIS specifies, and Chemistry
is
currently in charge of handling the transport protocol on top of
which CMIS
expresses itself.
- No extensibility means that backporting of fixes might be a no-go.
For
example, if I now upgrade Chemistry to the latest trunk my code
doesn't
compile anymore. Subclassing would be the best way to integrate your
changes in the version I use, but that's not available to me.
- The CMIS spec is (hopefully!) not fixed and will evolve with time.
OO
could help greatly e.g. to support different versions of the protocol
with
a single serve instance, which is painful to implement cleanly
following
the current code approach.
- Spec extensions are not evil per se. While they might indeed break
interoperability, they're also a way to open the protocol itself to
experiments and eventually drive a community based evolution of it.
- Interop is not always the top priority. CMIS and Chemistry provide
a lot
of value OOTB, and I don't see why proprietary extensions should be
denied
by principle. Why shouldn't I have the possibility to write a custom
extension to improve e.g. content delivery capabilities
(getContentStreamByPath, anyone?), while still retaining full
protocol
compliance for B2B data exchange?
If you made it to here, a big thank you for your patience.
Hope this helps,
c.
2013/5/8 Florian Müller <[email protected]>
Hi Carlo,
This code is not meant to be extensible. The CMIS standard is fixed.
There
will be no additional services or operations. Also, the semantics of
the
parameters will not change or have to be changed. Any extensions
would
bypass the specification, which would be a pain for clients and
doesn't
help interoperability.
All methods that handle requests are stateless, isolated pieces of
code.
OO doesn't help here. And the alternative to reflections would be a
120
lines if-statement. I can't see the advantage of that.
Also, this part is considered internal code and may change at any
time.
OpenCMIS provides a lot of extensibility on the client side and
keeping the
interfaces compatible does hurt sometimes. I don't see a real use
case to
have that pain also on the server side. If there is something
missing or
wrong, we usually fix it pretty quick - as you have seen.
Having said that, if you have a great idea how to refactor that
code, feel
free to provide a patch.
- Florian
Am Mittwoch, den 08.05.2013, 16:05 +0200 schrieb Carlo Sciolla <
[email protected]>:
Hi Florian,
thanks for your quick commit, I will experiment a bit with it and
let you
know what comes out of it. I do already have some initial comments
anyway:
- I see you only addressed the browser bindings implementation.
While I
can
see the reason behind it, I think it won't hurt to also apply a
similar
logic to the AtomPub binding
- as I'm stuck with v0.6.0, I'm looking into ways to backport or
integrate
your code in my app. The current logic for method dispatch in
AtomPub goes
against extensibility (and some object oriented design principles,
IMO)
and
while for the time being I can work around it, would you guys
consider
refactoring the dispatch logic to make use of non-final classes /
no
reflection / public constructors?
Thanks,
c.
2013/5/8 Florian Müller <[email protected]>
Hi Carlo,
I've added some new code. There are now three interfaces that let
you
control the server headers.
The ContentStream object that is returned by getContentStream()
must
implement the interface(s) to trigger the behavior:
ContentLengthContentStream - Sets the Content-Length header and
turns
chunking off.
LastModifiedContentStream - Sets the Last-Modified header and
respects
the
If-Modified-Since header.
CacheHeaderContentStream - Sets the Cache-Control header, the
Expires
header, and the ETag header and respects the If-None-Match header.
Please let me know if that works for you.
- Florian
Hi there, sorry for the late reply.
2013/5/7 Florian Müller <[email protected]>
That is surprising. Chunked encoding isn't really exotic.
Definitely, but browsers are always there to remind us that
world
class
standards are nothing different from regional social conventions,
are
they?
Could you please open an Improvement issue and add a few
details. I'll
look into it.
Thanks, here it is <https://issues.apache.org/****
jira/browse/CMIS-655<https://issues.apache.org/**jira/browse/CMIS-655>
<https://**issues.apache.org/jira/browse/**CMIS-655<https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-655>
>
>.
