Heard a rumour that the ccs specs are published. Now that the nda has been silently (!) dropped there's no restriction to publish and discuss them here now is there? ;-) In how far an eventual evolution to a micro services architecture (http://martinfowler.com/articles/microservices.html) will be kept in mind?
I would be happy with a small brms included. Not an interface to that expensive and vast corticon, just a small one written in abl. Easy integration possibilities with an os solution like http://openl-tablets.org/documentation/apologia would be nice. Furthermore dynamic catalog generation for datasets with more than one table. I could use that for batchmode insert of orders f.e. (so not first save an order and afterwards save orderlines one by one). Mailed this link before with a demo: http://eurekaaddons.co.uk/products/web-so-for-sage-200/ nice eh?
The CCS spec for the the proposed Community Draft of the Common Components Architecture Specification can be found here. Please check this out.
Thanks, can you resend the link? It does not work.
The tooltip is correct, the link isn't try this one community.progress.com/.../2698
Stefan, my understanding is they still wait for peoples that signed the NDA to agree to have it removed so not yet open party... the link gave by Carl gives 'access denied' welcome to everyone outside of the club I guess :(
Nope, rumours tell peoples (huh? hahaha) all approved. ;-) But it seems we'll have to give them some time to remove authorizations.
I'm glad to report that indeed the NDA has been removed and you all can now request to join the group. The registration process is rather simple and there is no more NDA. You'll only be asked to agree on the charter, contributor and release license agreements, and provide some additional information that will remain private. It shouldn't take you more than 3-5 minutes max to request to join the group.
If you'd like to review the charter and agreements, all these are available here under "Group Quick Links".
Only members of the CCS group have access to its content.
> Only members of the CCS group have access to its content.
Still a dark room session. Not my cup of tea.
shouldn't have to agree to the contributor agreement in order to /read/ specs.
hmm, finally took some time to fill in (most) off the required information to subscribe to this group (still pending registration)... still, found this on github although not much seems to be available there - http://progress.github.io/CCS/
Nice Gus! I dearly miss relatively independent voices like yours from inside progress. What is this? Fear to lose a ' position' ? What is that position worth then anyway, except some dull dollars for a ditto life? But anyway. It's too obvious to mention but: might it be that "outsiders" could have something valuable to say if the contents of what is offered is challenging and the trust exists ther is a responsive community? What are you afraid of that you do not just remove authorizations? I do no understand the point of keeping specs like these secret. Is there an nda or not?
I was the person who asked the questions, so I am the person who verifies if the answer is ... verified. So I removed the "question answered" Jean. But the initial mail contained not only a question but also things to discuss. Please do not try to close the discussion too hasty Jean. ;-)
Available for consumption/use. Not discussion. That's quite poor and not a very clever idea I find. A group without nda but closed, for which I have to sign agreements to view contents, does not attract me at all.