Hi, On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Paolo Mottadelli <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:36 AM, David Nuescheler <[email protected]> wrote: >> since i think it should also be a goal of this implementation to >> make our code as re-uable as possible, it is great that it does >> not have any specific proprietary jackrabbit dependencies but >> really just jcr dependencies. on top of that i think it would also >> be great to expose the entire cmis model as a separate api. > > Yes, this is what we were thinking about, as well; thinking of naming > it 'model'. So let's go with the 'api' one; I totally agree. >
Cool, I'll add a submodule 'api' then, as a sibling to 'server'. > >> i would like to take that a step further and also propose that we >> have a cmis client. i think this is something that is really important >> and help everybody developing something around cmis a great >> deal. >> so. i would propose that we have an svn subproject structure >> that is something like this. > > I think that the client subproject could be structured as a sort of > TCK for our server implementation; in that case it should be > structured to support generic functionalities and could be, one day, a > useful tool for other implementations. > > WDYT? I think that's a very good point. I especially like the idea of adding test cases for actual and future parts of the specification. Cheers Dominique > > -- > Paolo Mottadelli: http://www.paolomottadelli.com > Sourcesense - making sense of Open Source: http://www.sourcesense.com >
