[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (CMIS-723) Need to express other cmis:object types to clients.
[ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CMIS-723?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=29328#action_29328 ]
Bram de Kruijff commented on CMIS-723:
--------------------------------------
Sorry I did not make that call, but glad we are moving forward on this! Based on a few comments in today's TC call I just want to note here that I feel that this proposal is not so much an alternative to secondary types. Although they both support some type of customizing object types I believe they have different use cases and complement each other. Jay referred to this in comments above as "Symbiosis with Secondary types".
The combination of first class inheritance (base types) and mixins (secondary objecttypes) is not uncommon. In a domain requiring (lightweight) custom base types I would still want to able to apply a secondary type on standard and custom base types alike.
> Need to express other cmis:object types to clients.
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: CMIS-723
> URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/CMIS-723
> Project: OASIS Content Management Interoperability Services (CMIS) TC
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Components: Domain Model
> Affects Versions: V1.1
> Reporter: Jay Brown
> Fix For: Proposals for 2.0
>
>
> There are many use cases for expression of other object types that are neither cmis:folder, cmis:document, cmis:policy nor cmis:relationship. Examples include document-like types that do not permit versioning or do not permit a content stream (P8 has these), ancillary objects like annotations, or even objects that represent complex types which are currently not permitted in the CMIS 1.0 property model.
> I see two ways these could be expressed. The first is simply to have implementations show cmis:object as the top of the types collections instead of starting with cmis:object's proper children. The simplicity of this approach is cancelled out however by the fact this this would likely break most CMIS 1.0 clients. So I have a suggestion which expresses the same idea, not as elegantly but without the backward compatibility issues.
> In the object model, declare a new base object 'cmis:custom' which would serve as the base type for the entire genus of all of these currently CMIS/orphaned objects. It would have identical attributes to cmis:object
> (i.e. Id, localName, localNamespace, queryName, displayName, baseId, parentId, description, creatable, fileable, queryable, controllablePolicy, controllableACL, fulltextIndexed, includedInSupertypeQuery )
> though different values for those attributes of course. For example it would be recommended that the cmis:custom object be creatable=false since it is a more of an abstract class type. The implementation could optionally make cmis:custom queryable=true.
> Note: No xml schema changes needed.
> Thus 1.0 clients when querying types on a 1.1 server would just see 5 types instead of (4) as they do with 1.0 servers. The normal inheritance model would follow from there as is done with the other types. If cmis:custom was not supported then it would not appear in the type (children and descendants) feeds just like the optional cmis:relationship and cmis:policy behave today.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]