Hi Charles,
Maybe I could clarify my position in using James & LDAP so you could
see what I'd like to do in the end, I'll try to keep it short and sharp
:)
I'm trying to use James as a mail server (that needs to run both on NT
and Unix-based systems) so java is the best way of ensuring this. Then I
need LDAP because I think its the best way of sharing user details and
information between different applications. In my case applications are
services connected to the same framework. Unfortunatly not in the same
way you could think of with Avalon, but more or less it's the same
results that tends to be reached.
I'm involded in an european project called OSMOS (no web server yet :)
which tries to specify some kind of framework and sets of APIs to create
a collaborative environment dedicated to the building and construction
industry. This environment should enable communications, document
storage and cross-referenced, user management, workflow, scheduling,
etc. between different actors involved in a construction project.
By communication (this is where I see James can fit), I want to enable
(registered/authorized) users to send emails through my OSMOS server and
recipients to choose how they want to read/receive them. I've thought of
several ways such as or combination of :
- forwarding to another SMTP server
- having a POP3, IMAP4 repository
- email to fax service
- email to voice
- email to SMS
- ...
All these can be done with James (with little work of course). So I'd
like so express you all my congratulations for the work you have
achieved so far. I know it must have been hard work, I will had my brick
when I understand more of the inside of James, but for the moment well
done !
If you have any comments on this, please feel free to say !
Now for James & LDAP
Concerning lists, I think you are right, they should also be handled or
supported by the LDAP repository.
A quick one concerning James, (a newbie question) how do you kill
Avalon/James properly under NT ?
Regards,
Mathieu
Charles Benett wrote:
>
> Mathieu,
> Thanks for the feedback - keep the comments coming!
>
> When I wrote the LDAP user repository, mailing-lists and Localusers were
> structurally similar; lists needed owners, so LocalUsers got one as
> well. The user repository interfaces have changed, so this is no longer
> necessary.
> -> owner for LocalUsers now deprecated
> -> will come out when I next rejig it.
>
> List management is currently on the file system only. Maybe we should
> add back LDAP support for that.
>
> Any other comments or thoughts on James or James & LDAP you can share?
>
> Regards,
>
> Charles
>
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
