> > IMHO James needs to have people doing things to it, we've had a
> > virtual
>
> -1
>
> I know I'm going to step on toes by saying this but...
>
> James does not need more code before James needs management
> and design.
>
> Everyone, except for Stefano, seems to be too busy. Which is
>
On 23/08/05, Kervin L. Pierre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know I'm going to step on toes by saying this
> but...
>
> James does not need more code before James needs
> management and design.
I don't think you are being overly critical, but I do think you are
oversimplifying the situation.
Jam
Danny Angus wrote:
On 8/22/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
IMHO the ONLY way to move is to CODE something
+1
IMHO James needs to have people doing things to it, we've had a virtual
-1
I know I'm going to step on toes by saying this
but...
James does not need more code bef
On 8/22/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO the ONLY way to move is to CODE something
+1
IMHO James needs to have people doing things to it, we've had a virtual
moratorium on changes this last while and I see our current position as
being one in which we can afford to, in fact y
On 8/22/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO the ONLY way to move is to CODE something
+1
--
Serge Knystautas
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
7) IMAP: create
This sounds like the most appealing :).
Ahmed.
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Danny Angus wrote:
> I've been messing with Derby recently and wondered if we shouldn't
> just bundle derby
I'd favor packages that bundled Derby or Axion so that we had a known
database. Since we would have pre-configured and packaged the database,
there would not be any installation effort re
>I'm not sure how much appetite we have for adopting things like this, it
> may be more advantageous (not to mention pragmatic) for us to either
> adopt Paul's changes
Actually, if you go back and read the early messages about Paul's
picofication work, you will find that we've been waiting for it
Serge summed it up perfectly...
> And NNTP, if possible (I never use it, but would love to unify things).
+1
> I would focus on designing a new API to our specific needs, and provide
> migration utilities for existing users.
+1
d.
Jason Webb wrote:
One repository to rule them all, one repository to find them. One repository
to rule them all and in the darkness bind them :) (Apologies to JRR
One of my primary design goals is to make sure the user can access their
email using POP3 or IMAP4 in whatever way they choose. I will i
> If your interested in doing much with Cornerstone, I would seriously
> suggest someone post a note to Paul since he was the last working on it
> and had some plans on resurrecting it.
Paul is a contributor here too, so this will pass across his mailbox..
I'm not sure how much appetite we have
> -Original Message-
> From: Soren Hilmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
...
> If CornerStone is alive and well, submitting the code back would be a good
> move. But If my memory does not fail me completely (I often get the issues
> on Phoenix and CornerStone and Avalon mixedup in my head) the c
> The database repositories are simple to deal with as we (James) own the
> code. My main issue is with the Cornerstone file: repositories as they are
> "owned" by the Avalon project. I would like to make changes to these, but
> I need to know if we are still going to be going forward with
> Corner
ED]
> > Sent: 22 December 2004 14:15
> > To: James Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Repositories
> >
> > On Wednesday 22 December 2004 13:50, Danny Angus wrote:
> > > Soren,
> > > Derby would be embedded in James, it would not be visible to users
To: "'James Developers List'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| cc:
> -Original Message-
> From: Soren Hilmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2004 14:15
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Repositories
>
> On Wednesday 22 December 2004 13:50, Danny Angus wrote:
> >
> > Soren,
> > Derby woul
On Wednesday 22 December 2004 13:50, Danny Angus wrote:
>
> Soren,
> Derby would be embedded in James, it would not be visible to users at all,
> and require no additional admin or configuration.
> The messages would not be visible in the filesystem, but that would be the
> only drawback.
Okay, so
Jason Webb wrote:
I've only played with Cloudscape before (Derby's forerunner if you don't
know, I'm sure Danny does!). How would people feel about dropping file:
support altogether and only using db: repositories then?
However this would mean that dbfile: wouldn't work. I don't want to kill a
fea
> I feel very badly about doing that, as we suddenly demand installation of
a DB
> to run James.
Soren,
Derby would be embedded in James, it would not be visible to users at all,
and require no additional admin or configuration.
The messages would not be visible in the filesystem, but that would
Makes a lot of sense, and although OO purists' hearts my flutter, it is
better to move forward with a viable solution. Since file repositories need
to be carried forward, my feeling is that it be best to follow the path you
have already begun ...
-Original Message-
From: Jason Webb [mai
> I haven't played with derby/cloudscape, but if it's anything like HSQLDB
> (another pure java db), when running in embedded mode, only one app can
> connect to the database at a time, which is a real pain in the ass.
.. but if you want to access the db you can run it in network mode, sounds
li
> -Original Message-
> From: Soren Hilmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2004 11:17
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Repositories
>
> I feel very badly about doing that, as we suddenly demand installation of
> a DB
> to run James.
>
I've only played with Cloudscape before (Derby's forerunner if you don't
know, I'm sure Danny does!). How would people feel about dropping file:
Dropping files might be accepted, but not DBFiles.
Having no "pure file" support, would mean that users would need a better
"remote manager", and since t
t;
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: 22 December 2004 10:20
> > To: James Developers List
> > Subject: Re: Repositories
> >
> > I've been messing with Derby recently and wondered if we shouldn'
; To: 'James Developers List'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: RE: Repositories
>
>
> I've only played with Cloudscape before (Derby's forerunner if you don't
> know, I'm sure Danny does!). How would people feel about dropping file:
> support altogether and
't want to kill a
feature "accidentally" that a lot of people rely on.
Any thoughts?
-- Jason
> -Original Message-
> From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 22 December 2004 10:20
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Repositories
>
> I've bee
I've been messing with Derby recently and wondered if we shouldn't
just bundle derby for people who don't care what happens..?
Otherwise I think we will need to deprecate the cornerstone ones in
favour of something better for our sanity if nothing else. These have
had "issues" for as long as I've
27 matches
Mail list logo
