On 2/7/07, Joachim Draeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am Mittwoch, den 31.01.2007, 21:25 + schrieb robert burrell donkin:
> how far is the new fetch implementation from being completed?
Unfortunately I currently stopped working on James.
that's a pity: i was looking forward to seeing yo
Am Mittwoch, den 31.01.2007, 21:25 + schrieb robert burrell donkin:
> how far is the new fetch implementation from being completed?
Unfortunately I currently stopped working on James. Maybe I go on when
internal conflicts have been solved.
Joachim
On 2/3/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> If this is not necessary I'm even happier: we'll have a better overview
> >> once the new component is ready, so go ahead!
> >
> > +1
+1
On 2/1/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ps: Im still alive :-P
Great news! ;-)
+1
- r
>> If this is not necessary I'm even happier: we'll have a better overview
>> once the new component is ready, so go ahead!
>
> +1
+1
On 2/1/07, Norman Maurer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Ps: Im still alive :-P
Great news! ;-)
d.
--
Serge Knystautas schrieb:
> On 2/1/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > i'm not sure that is necessary: it should be possible (given
>> > modularisation) to work within the existing frameworks.
>> >
>> > - robert
>>
>> If this is not necessary I'm even happier: we'll have a better ov
On 2/1/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i'm not sure that is necessary: it should be possible (given
> modularisation) to work within the existing frameworks.
>
> - robert
If this is not necessary I'm even happier: we'll have a better overview
once the new component is ready, so
robert burrell donkin wrote:
It seems you/we would like to replace the protocol handling with MINA,
to change the spooling architecture, to rewrite the storage, to remove
avalon or at least phoenix and so on.
Maybe starting a whole new effort would be much better than keep trying
moving step-by-s
On 2/1/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> i found time over the last week or two to take a look at MINA and
> understand better the words it uses. i now suspect that we've been
> working towards similar architectures from different perspectives.
> [...]
robert burrell donkin wrote:
i found time over the last week or two to take a look at MINA and
understand better the words it uses. i now suspect that we've been
working towards similar architectures from different perspectives.
[...]
opinions?
The diagram is almost standard MINA setup. +1 for
i found time over the last week or two to take a look at MINA and
understand better the words it uses. i now suspect that we've been
working towards similar architectures from different perspectives.
i broadly agree with Joachim (see
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-725): the first ste
10 matches
Mail list logo
