Hi, There’s one more thing to check on our side before giving the green light for 0.3, I will work on that tomorrow and let you know as soon as I can.
Regards, Gavin On 25 Mar 2014, at 06:38, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
