On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 5:24 PM, Jukka Zitting <jukka.zitt...@gmail.com> wrote: > I compared opencmis-provider-api to chemistry-api. While there are > differences in design (granularity of interfaces, type safety, etc.), > the fundamental architecture is the same for both projects. This is as > expected as they both map the same standard to Java. > > Are there some specific reasons why one design is superior to the > other? The only major difference I could quickly spot is the > ExtensionsData structure that OpenCMIS seems to include in almost all > method signatures. Other than that it looks like it would be fairly > straightforward to map from one API to another.
I haven't had time to look at the OpenCMIS code yet. If there are useful use cases for adding ExtensionsData then there's no question that this'll get added to Chemistry. Note that the SOAP bindings have this anyway, since this is required by the XSDs. Florent -- Florent Guillaume, Director of R&D, Nuxeo Open Source, Java EE based, Enterprise Content Management (ECM) http://www.nuxeo.com http://www.nuxeo.org +33 1 40 33 79 87 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
