Am Dienstag, den 09.01.2007, 20:59 + schrieb Danny Angus:
> > Should whole James only work with JCRs? Should usage of JCR be part of
> > the Mailet API?
>
> IMO No, because we don't want to *require* any kind of sophisticated
> storage. It may be impossible to avoid specifying a simple interf
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> On 1/9/07, Joachim Draeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Should whole James only work with JCRs? Should usage of JCR
> be part of
> > the Mailet API?
>
> IMO No, because we don't want to *require* any kind of sophisticated
> storage. It may be impossible to avoid s
On 1/9/07, Joachim Draeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Should whole James only work with JCRs? Should usage of JCR be part of
the Mailet API?
IMO No, because we don't want to *require* any kind of sophisticated
storage. It may be impossible to avoid specifying a simple interface
or two, but the
robert burrell donkin schrieb:
> built in security means it could be used to safely expose the mail
to the
> alternative services that robert and others have spoken of
>
I just doubt that is is suitable as a well performing IMAP backend.
Optimization for the use case is mandatory if you want to
