RE: [PROPOSAL]

Danny, Your +1 and -1 are really almost identical when push comes to shove. :-) --- Noel - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Mina based SMTP Handler

Mike Heath wrote: Mina is an excellent framework. The Mina based SMTP handler is much easier to read and understand than the one in James (at least, IMO). This all thanks to how well the Mina framework works. I would be happy to work with any James committers on merging my SMTP code into the new J

Mina based SMTP Handler

I checked in the initial version of my Mina based SMTP handler to the James HA project on Source Forge. Once Source Forge updates its CVS mirrors, you can check out the code doing the following: cvs -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroot/james-ha login cvs -z3 -d:pserver:[EMAIL PROTECTED]:/cvsroo

RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] POJO pattern

> > Result after 24 hours, > 24 hours! Where did it say that? Don't take it too strongly. Most votes go a minimum of 72, and you can veto code change at any time. > I wanted time to clarify something once I had come up > with a viable solution. I always encourage constructive dialog, and I supp

RE: [RESULT] [VOTE] POJO pattern

Danny Angus wrote: > Result after 24 hours, 24 hours! Where did it say that? I saw the proposal but didn't vote yesterday as I wanted time to clarify something once I had come up with a viable solution. >From the proposal... > The basic pattern will be to have agnostic POJO's contain > James'

Re: imap2

On Tue, Apr 12, 2005 at 05:37:09AM -0400, Web Design by DraegoonZ wrote: > Should I be building against the HEAD in cvs? > > Thanks. I've been told that you should build with branch_2_1_fcs[1]. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. :) [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/branches/ -- GP

Re: imap2

Well, according to my errors, most of the action is in org\apache\james\security\KeyHolder.java. Someone who has more experience with imap2 should take a look. I'm just getting familiar with it and can't make decisions on what functionality should and should not be there. Should I be building

Re: [PROPOSAL]

we probably _would_ end up with old_head and HEAD as a clone of the fcs branch in order to preserve the history. On Apr 12, 2005 9:53 AM, Daniel Perry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Daft question, but is it not more sensible to have 3 branches here? head, > old-head, and branch_2_1_fcs where: > >

Re: [PROPOSAL]

> The options and wording look good to me Danny. > Also, unless anyone has any good reasons why not, that > branch_2_1_fcs be made up as a final release. > > -- Jason I'm not a committer, but Wouldn't it be better to make a 2.2.1 release before starting with the big refactoring? I think th

RE: [PROPOSAL]

The options and wording look good to me Danny. Also, unless anyone has any good reasons why not, that branch_2_1_fcs be made up as a final release. -- Jason > -Original Message- > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 12 April 2005 09:39 > To: James Developers List > Subject

RE: [PROPOSAL]

Daft question, but is it not more sensible to have 3 branches here? head, old-head, and branch_2_1_fcs where: branch_2_1_fcs is current stable use-this-one branch. For now it is what people should check out to get james source, but also keep it for any necessary maintenence releases later. head i

[PROPOSAL]

All, *THIS IS NOT A VOTE* Please would you review the following proposal, *before* I ask for a vote on this too. I propose a Vote of Thanks to Noel J Bergman for the outstanding service he has provided, and continues to provide the James project. I further propose that we believe it is unreasona

Re: imap2

Hi folks, I don't know the IMAP implementation at all but the BouncyCastle imports look like tinkering with signing MimeMessage. If there are no other dependency deleting the imports would be reasonable. Cheers, Siegfried Goeschl Jason Webb wrote: Well, possibly not! I've only been building the

RE: imap2

Well, possibly not! I've only been building the IMAP2 tree against the HEAD in cvs (yes it is that old) and this doesn't use the Bouncycastle stuff -- Jason > -Original Message- > From: Web Design by DraegoonZ [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 April 2005 22:41 > To: server-dev@james.ap

[RESULT] [VOTE] POJO pattern

Result after 24 hours, +1 Soren, Serge, Vincenzo, Noel, Danny +0 Jason I therefore declare that the proposal has been accepted by majority vote. d. On Apr 11, 2005 9:57 AM, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I propose that work commence to extract James's "value add" IP from classes > su

Re: Merging (was [VOTE] POJO pattern)

> I saw the point was more that we would not lose anything (since > everything is in SVN) if we dumped what we have in MAIN (now trunk) and > replaced it with branch_2_1_fcs. And, since we're agreeing on an > evolutionary move away from our current dependencies, we could replace > trunk with what'