Juergen, Thanks so much for answering all of these emails.. I have become quite informed about the Apache projects in general and slide specifically AFA status and process. Your time is much appreciated to help us understand how the process works.
As for the CM API, I have to move forward on my project currently to get locking and editing via Struts going now, so I'll plan on moving the xxxMethod executeRequest logic over as needed. I'll see if I can draw up a prelim arch overview of how I would envision Slide with a CM only kernel, and gateways such as WebDAV, JMX, EJB, etc. Whether I build this API off of the JSR APIs or not, I haven't determined yet. My assumption is that your company only needs the webdav capabilities for Tamino, is that right? Or, is this something you'd be interested in supporting? How many others on this list would agree that a new CMS API broken away from the webdav spec would be useful? Or, is it just me? Thanks, James > -----Original Message----- > From: Pill, Juergen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 14, 2003 6:54 AM > To: 'Slide Users Mailing List' > Subject: RE: Slide status (was: newbie question about slide future) > > > Hello James, > > My (personal) concentration of effort is more about WebDAV > (and the associated standards) than the current Slide CM API. > I think Remy (and the JSR 170 team) is going to put some > effort in this area. Your generic accessor idea looks pretty > good and ambitious; it would be very nice, if you find > yourself in the position doing this in Slide (IMO). > > Best regards > > Juergen > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: James Higginbotham [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Donnerstag, 13. März 2003 16:52 > To: Slide Users Mailing List > Subject: RE: Slide status (was: newbie question about slide future) > > Juergen, > > > I regret, if you are unhappy with the current Slide > > situation. Slide consists of many pieces (e.g. WebDAV client > > API, server, cm API, GUI and command line clients, etc). Some > > of those are actively worked on; some of those are currently > > under lower development. > > Thanks for the information. I do respect the amount of work > that has been put into Slide thus far - lots of > "reading the spec and implementing" as well as creative > extras. What I'm proposing is some enhancements to make it > more viable beyond the direct webdav/deltav support. If my > proposals stand outside the realm of where Slide wants to go, > feel free to say so and I'll make a separate project to > handle my requirements. Again, I want to help make Slide even > better, as others do as well. Our concern is that its not > supported well (I still have an outstanding question > regarding locks from 3/6). If out of this thread we can > "rally the troops" so to speak and get more doco, mailing > list support by those that are digging in deeper, and some > nice refactorings in the future, then my goal has been achieved. > > With that, I would be willing to assist in any design around > a central kernel API that can be communicated via any number > of gateways, and a revised set of struts tags and examples > that would take advantage of this new API. I am on a project > right now that needs this, so I am currently pulling code > from the xxxMethod classes into my own API for now. > Obviously, my project will have to come first but any spare > time I have is yours - I would love to see this project > really take off even more than it has already. > > Best Regards, > James > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
