Sounds good to me Gab. Florian and I will go through the remaining topics and come up with a suggestion how to proceed with the 1.0 release.
Jens On 13.08.13 11:00, "Gabriele Columbro" <[email protected]> wrote: >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
