I'm fine if you want to do this, Serge, but I don't think its necessary.
I think we should launch James 1.2 with experimental (& inelegant) RDBMS
and LDAP support, then, fairly quickly, move to the new Avalon, tidy up
several things and go for James1.3.
Charles
Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> Sorry for the cross post, but this idea involves both groups.
>
> (a bit of a background first...)
> Right now JAMES is based on a branch in avalon's CVS tree named
> avalon-james-1-1b1. (This branch was made in late June 2000 and we see
> Avalon 2.2-dev on startup). The JAMES group is planning to make a new
> (version 1.2) release based on this branch, and as the next release will
> include migrating to the latest avalon release.
>
> One feature of avalon we've attempted to leverage is the idea of pluggable
> repositories. We use MailRepositories, SpoolRepositories (an extension of
> MailRepositories), and UserRepositories. With this, we've added some new
> database driven mail/spool repositories and an ldap user repository. The
> problem I'm struggling with right now is that with the branch we're using,
> repositories are not configurable. This makes repositories somewhat
> difficult as we end up putting lots of conf settings into a URL, or do some
> other workaround that's even less elegant.
>
> I propose as to make the 1.2 version cleaner (and simpler to administer), I
> apply a patch to org.apache.avalon.blocks.masterstore.MasterStore to see if
> the repository it is instantiating is configurable, and if it is, pass a
> Configuration object. I'm pretty confident this is the object that's
> instantiating these repository objects, and this would be a rather small
> change. Once this patch was made, I could generate new avalon jars and put
> these new jars into the JAMES cvs tree and distribution for 1.2.
>
> >From looking over the latest Avalon release, repositories are configurable,
> so it seems this will only help us later transition to Avalon, and in the
> meantime, it lets me clean up some code and make the configuration more
> flexible and more readable. (avalon developers will hopefully point out if
> this is a pointless change as these concepts will get significantly changed
> in the new avalon release).
>
> Any comments? I'm planning to do whatever it takes on JAMES this weekend to
> make it ready for 1.2 and would like to do this as part of that. Sorry for
> giving so little time to think about this, but I just really thought of it a
> day or two ago and had the chance to look over the code tonight.
>
> Serge Knystautas
> Loki Technologies
> http://www.lokitech.com/
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
