Hi, Alright then. Just give me you OK when everything is ready for 0.3 from your side. I will then do the release.
Whenever you are ready for the initial browser binding checkin please let me know so that we can have a look and discuss the further approach :) Regards, Lukas On 3/24/14 11:14 AM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi, > >Sounds good to me, I just need to check here that there isn¹t anything >else required for 0.3, the guy I need to ask is beck from holiday >tomorrow so I¹ll send a response tomorrow if that¹s OK? > >If you don¹t 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 I¹m 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 >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
