Charles Benett wrote:
> With regard to the future, providing a maildir implementation is fine
> but I'd recommend keeping the interface general enough to support other
> implementations.
> There were questions about the operation of IMAP versus POP3 which
> suggested they need different mailbox functionality. When we get to
> that stage, I guess we need to think about the design requirements
> for the 4 different mail repositories: SMTP spool, POP3, IMAP and NNTP.
Absolutely. My take on repositories is:
We want a single repository interface that is suitable for all message
stores, including POP, IMAP and NNTP. We need an abstract interface capable
of supporting search and multiple providers. Personally, I want an
interface that can be optimized by providers, e.g., if we are using a JDBC
provider, I want to be able to leverage SQL queries as much as possible.
I have some ideas regarding this, but am postponing them until the v3
moratorium is lifted.
We have this far found it convenient to use a subclass of our mail
repository for spooling, but I am not sure if is the best way moving
forward.
FWIW, I had just written that this morning to the author of a Java maildir
implementation. He may be interested in contributing to James, and
mentioned some discussions he had with the JavaMail folks. Apparently there
may be some willingness to make changes to JavaMail to better fit server
needs, too.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
