So, just to close this thread, as per its original subject, 0.10.0 RC1 is out.
Let's start a separate thread for 1.0. Thanks, very interesting discussion. Gab On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Huebel, Jens <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > > -- Gabriele Columbro Principal Architect, Consulting Services Alfresco Software <http://www.alfresco.com> twitter: @mindthegabz <http://twitter.com/#!/mindthegabz> blog: http://mindthegab.com *"Keyboard not found. Press F1 to continue"*
