Hi Lukas, The issue with cancelling create operations is resolved and the fix committed.
Regards, Gavin On 31 Mar 2014, at 15:48, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Gavin, > > Sure - just drop me an email when you have fixed the issue :) > > Cheers, > Lukas > > On 3/31/14 3:51 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Lukas, >> >> I’ve found another bug (uploads do not cancel) that would be really good >> to be fixed before we do the 0.3 release. >> >> I’m testing a solution right now, can you please hold off the release >> until I’ve committed the fix? >> >> Regards, >> >> Gavin >> >> >> >> On 28 Mar 2014, at 08:29, Gavin Cornwell <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Sounds great, many thanks Lukas. >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Gavin >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 Mar 2014, at 07:50, Gross, Lukas <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> We have some minor fixes on our side that I'm going to commit today. >>>> I will take care of the 0.3 release next week. >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Lukas >>>> >>>> On 3/27/14 12:29 PM, "Gavin Cornwell" <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> I have run through all the tests on our side and found a couple of >>>>> minor >>>>> issues that I addressed yesterday (project settings and a progress >>>>> issue). >>>>> >>>>> There is still an Xcode warning/suggestion on the project settings >>>>> (when >>>>> using Xcode 5.1) which caused a problem building with Xcode 5.0 so >>>>> I’ve >>>>> left them as they were for now. The 64 bit slice is being included in >>>>> the >>>>> binary so I think this will be fine for this release. >>>>> >>>>> Unless you have a different opinion on the project settings I think >>>>> we’re >>>>> ready for the 0.3 release. >>>>> >>>>> Regards, >>>>> >>>>> Gavin >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 25 Mar 2014, at 15:24, Gavin Cornwell <[email protected]> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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 >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
