Hi, Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn’t anything else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday tomorrow so I’ll send a response tomorrow if that’s OK?
If you don’t mind doing the release that is absolutely fine with me ;-) Regarding the browser binding, I created the branch over the weekend and have merged the work I did previously into that locally. There is still some work to do before I’m happy doing an initial commit, but I plan on doing that in the evenings this week so I should have something to contribute soon. Regards, Gavin On 21 Mar 2014, at 16:46, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Excellent thats also our opinion. However ACL write support is not on our > list for the next weeks, so I would rather do a release now and then > concentrate on Browser Binding. > Do you want me to do the release? Please let me know how you want to > proceed. > > Regards, > Lukas > > On 3/21/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
