[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [cmis-comment] Request for Re-Incorporation of CMIS 203 into 1.0Specification
|
Paul, Would it be ok to use the
existing URI property datatype and encourage repository users to populate a
datatype with a link to the content item for this usecase? We have a call this
morning at 9am pacific – details are on the TC page. I hope you can join. -Ryan From: Paul Raby
[mailto:praby@tibco.com] We have a use case that has been
invalidated by the removal of a feature from the specification as part of http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CMIS-203.
I’m looking to see if there is a way of getting support for our use case into
the CMIS specification. We have been using draft implementations of
CMIS to achieve a query via web services to locate a document in the content
repository and following that construct a URL that can be presented to a
browser based web client so that an end user can access content from their
browser by clicking on a hyperlink direct to the content repository. This no
longer works due to the removal of support for this information via the above
referenced amendment to the specification. Our use case is simply that we don’t have
access to Atom Pub from our server tier and can only use web services. We are
looking to obtain a URL that can be presented to a web browser in order to
access content that has been located via a web service CMIS query. Our
intention is to keep things as clean as possible and hence we ideally want the
web service CMIS query to return a URL, or at least part of the URL that in
combination with the getRepositoryInfo operation could be composed into a URL
via simple concatenation. The URL in question need not be, for our
purposes, a standardised CMIS Atom Pub style formatted URL. It could be vendor
specific and proprietary. So long as it can be referenced from a web browser
via HTTP to a specific piece of content the actual structure of the URL is not
of importance to us. It would be really helpful if a service
that we had working previously against prototypes prior to the CMIS 203 change
could work again, even if the original specification needs to be modified to be
able to suit all vendors. I am therefore by this post formally
requesting that this functionality be re-incorporated into the 1.0
specification again. Kind regards Paul Raby TIBCO |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]