On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 10:36 AM, Florian Müller <[email protected]> wrote:
> How about this: > We release 0.10.0 now, compile a road map, publish it and work on v1.0. > That seems a valid approach to me, as allow us to move on and because tasks can be easily parallelized. I will work and push out 0.10.0 as is for vote anyway and potentially complete the release this week. For the record, also because I feel a bit guilty for not having found time to push out 0.9.1 (and the WSDL major fixes coming with it) in due time... Still, I think Peter points are very spot on, and I this we should release 1.0 very soon. So, in parallel, Florian can take the lead on discussing the roadmap in Jira / email / website. I have a couple of things myself I want to do from a release cleanup / handover standpoint for 1.0 so would be good to timebox 1.0 and see what is possible. Deal? :) Thanks, Gab > Florian > > > > G'day Florian, >> >> Yeah *I* understand that OpenCMIS is production grade - I've >> explicitly chosen to use it in several Alfresco products that I >> manage. The problem is when I deliver that message to other >> prospective implementers it sometimes falls on deaf ears. >> >> Having the explanation below, or Dieter's quote, or similar may help >> such implementers to decide in favour of OpenCMIS. Having a v1.0 >> would be more effective. >> >> Cheers, >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:57 AM, Florian Müller <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> 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 >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> > -- Gabriele Columbro Principal Architect, Consulting Services Alfresco Software <http://www.alfresco.com> twitter: @mindthegabz <http://twitter.com/#%21/mindthegabz> blog: http://mindthegab.com mobile: +31627565013
