Hi, I think yes, we should target the 0.3 release without the browser binding.
We will probably need a 0.3 release sooner than 3-4 months (most likely in the next month) and I will only be able to work on the browser binding as a background task in my spare time. My preference therefore would be to finish your ACL write features and release that as 0.3 and then have a 0.4 release for the browser binding support. What do you think? Regards, Gavin On 20 Mar 2014, at 13:01, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > The main question is: Do we target a 0.3 release without browser binding > or do we plan to get browser binding done first. From our side this > depends on the timeframe in which we can get this done. If we could get > this done within lets say the next 2 to 3 months I would prefer to bundle > everything together and release 0.3. If you think we need longer than we > should consider moving browser binding to 0.4. However we have a strong > demand for browser binding and therefore plan to have at least one person > working full-time on this topic. > The only other thing currently in our pipeline is write support for ACLs. > We recently committed the parser for read support however write is still > missing. We plan to do this also during the next weeks. > > Regards, > Lukas > > On 3/20/14 10:27 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Excellent, a 0.3 release would also be really useful for us too. >> >> I would suggest doing a release sooner rather than later, what other >> implementation tasks are there from your side that would need to be done >> before 0.3? >> >> Cheers, >> >> Gav >> >> >> >> On 20 Mar 2014, at 07:58, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I agree that it would be more consistent to have only the request object >>> to cancel a request. I will change our code to use the request objects >>> cancel method and then remove the stop parameter from the library. >>> >>> We had problems using Google hangout in the past, however we could give >>> it >>> another try. Just let me know when you have setup the branch and we can >>> schedule a session. >>> >>> We should also discuss the timeframe for the upcoming implementation >>> tasks >>> so that we can plan the Objective CMIS 0.3 release. We need this new >>> release as early as possible so that we can get an approval for it :) >>> >>> Regards, >>> Lukas >>> >>> On 3/19/14 10:21 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I do see your point about the stop parameter being a common paradigm in >>>> iOS, however, personally I would prefer that we remove it, especially >>>> if >>>> the request approach works. We then have one consistent way to cancel >>>> operations across the whole library (the parameter approach is only >>>> applicable to methods with progress). >>>> >>>> Great to hear you're also interested in the browser binding. I did my >>>> initial work a while ago so I need to sync it with the recent changes >>>> but >>>> I'll commit it in a branch as soon as I can. >>>> >>>> I too think it would be a great idea to resurrect the status meeting, >>>> even if it's just once a month. I will schedule something once I've >>>> committed something. Can you remind me, are you guys able to use Google >>>> Hangouts or would webex be a better choice? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Gavin >>> >> >
