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
>>
>>
