Hi, My initial thought is what do we offer our current 0.3 users who use the web UI quite a bit.
I think I mentioned this before but here goes again. I have held off releasing the 0.4 version onto the appliances for that specific reason. Now we can create a new release of the appliances and then warn the people that they will not have UI. This could cause us issues. I would be interested in what you all thought. I believe that if we warn all the users there is no webui it should be ok. Thoughts? Lance On Tue, 17 Feb 2009 13:56:37 +0000, Alex Hudson <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey again, > > jur on IRC reminded me of a couple of threats I'd made previously and > which I should air here for the record too. > > One thing I've considered recently was splitting the web parts of Bongo > and making them a separate project-within-a-project as it were. > > At the moment, we have the dragonfly client, which is basically > stand-alone, and the dragonfly server, which sits on top of our layer of > Python. Now, the Python isn't standalone - it uses a few of our C > libraries - but I'll hand-wave past that for now. What I'm proposing is > to bring both of those pieces into a separate project, and treat them as > a completely standalone client project, perhaps even with their own SVN > or something. > > The various attempts at re-doing our web UI have been somewhat abortive > up til now, so I have a new proposal which includes some of the above. > > First, that the 0.5 release of Bongo be basically server-only in the way > that 0.4 was, but more - not include any web pieces at all. We've done a > fair amount of bug-fixing to 0.4 since it was released, and aside from > some continuing problems with MIME and the queue, it's actually not in > bad shape at all. > > Second, that we have a go with some web UI stuff outside of Bongo before > we then decide what we're going to do with it inside the project itself. > Essentially, I think that this won't mean many changes: it might mean > slight changes to better allow clients to send mail/access the queue > (which we need to do anyway), and it would mean that we can't mess > around with the store protocol too much (which probably isn't a bad > thing either). > > Lance raised a decent point about synchronisation, and that's also > something I'd like to see happen, but which I've kind of ignored for now :) > > More thoughts? :) > > Alex. > > _______________________________________________ > Bongo-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/bongo-devel > > -- > This message was scanned by REDAMS and is believed to be clean. _______________________________________________ Bongo-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/bongo-devel
