Thanks for the clear response Florian. That confirms my understanding. To be fully compliant with the capabilityContentStreamUpdatability, an implementing system would need to handle "no content" and "content with 0 bytes" differently. Alternatively, the system could advertise that it doesn't support that capability, and setContentStream, appendContentStream and deleteContentStream services would not be needed. Does that sound right?
It sounds like the FileShare implementation achieves its goal of being an easy to understand implementation, even if it's not perfectly compliant with the specification. - Jake Karnes On 2018/03/09 10:08:39, Florian Müller <f...@apache.org> wrote: > Hi Jake, > > The Chemistry dev list is the right place to ask. > > CMIS makes a clear distinction between "no content" and "content with 0 > bytes". On a file system, there is no difference between the two. When a > document is created, an empty file is created. The information if there > was no content stream or an empty content stream is lost. When > getContentStream() is called, the FileShare server has to make a choice, > which can be wrong. > Please note, that the FileShare implementation is a very naïve > implementation and its main purpose is to provide some sample code. In a > productive implementation, you would record whether there was a content > stream or not and based on that return an error or an empty content. > > > - Florian >
