Re: [DISCUSSION] OpenCMIS 0.10.0

Mon, 12 Aug 2013 04:59:31 -0700 

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 <[email protected]> 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
[email protected]


"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" <[email protected]>

To:

"[email protected]" <[email protected]>,

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" <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 
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
>>
>>




























					Reply via email to