Hello again, Related with the Permission Mapping keys, I am using the constant defined in org.apache.chemistry.opencmis.commons.data.PermissionMapping. But I have detected some issues with that:
1) Shouldn't this be an enum instead a group of constants. In this way, you can iterate through the collection of the ActionMappings keys. I have created a JIRA wish for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-663 2) The value of the constant PermissionMapping.CAN_GET_DESCENDENTS_FOLDER is not correctly written. It should be "canGetDescendants.Folder" instead of "canGetDescendents.Folder". I have created a JIRA bug for this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CMIS-662 3) There is a discrepancy between openCMIS PermissionMapping interface, CMIS 1.0 ( http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/errata-01/os/cmis-spec-v1.0-errata-01-os-complete.doc) and CMIS 1.1 ( http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.1/cos01/CMIS-v1.1-cos01.pdf ) related with the following key: 3.1) PermissionMapping.CAN_GET_PARENTS_FOLDER = "canGetParents.Folder" 3.2) CMIS 1.0 (line 1856): canGetParents.Object 3.3) CMIS 1.1 (): canGetParents.Folder Also, I'm not sure about the definition in CMIS 1.1 of the action canGetFolderParent. The operand is Folder but the key is canGetFolderParent.Object. Could you please clarify if the key values in the PermissionMapping interface are correct? Thank you very much in advance, Jaime Porras. 2013/5/23 Florian Müller <[email protected]> > Hi Jaime Porras, > > You are right, this is a specification issue and should be corrected in an > errata. > I'll take it to the CMIS Technical Committee. > > > Thanks for pointing that out, > > Florian > > > > > Hello, >> >> While trying to implement a CMIS server I have found a possible errata in >> the CMIS specification versions 1.0 and 1.1: >> >> The base types defined for the Permission Mappings Keys >> canAddToFolder.Folder and canRemoveFromFolder.Folder are cmis:document, >> cmis:policy (plus cmis:item in the 1.1 version), but it should be only the >> cmis:folder type for both cases. >> >> Would you mind to clarify if my guessing is correct? >> >> Thank you very much in advance. >> >> Regards, >> >> Jaime Porras. >> >> PS: Following are the lines for each version where the possible errata >> is... >> >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/**cmis/CMIS/v1.0/errata-01/os/** >> cmis-spec-v1.0-errata-01-os-**complete.doc<http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.0/errata-01/os/cmis-spec-v1.0-errata-01-os-complete.doc> >> Line 2035 >> Line 2051 >> >> http://docs.oasis-open.org/**cmis/CMIS/v1.1/cos01/CMIS-v1.**1-cos01.pdf<http://docs.oasis-open.org/cmis/CMIS/v1.1/cos01/CMIS-v1.1-cos01.pdf> >> Page 91 Line 8 and Line 20 (without counting blank lines). >> > >
