Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> I think that the major thought in my head was that the
> processor would have
> more full access to James, as opposed to the portable Mailet
> container.
Ah! You mean that <processor> creates an instance of class LinearProcessor,
which currently is hardcoded to launch the Mailet container. We can add
flexiblity, making it possible to launch other containers, such as one for
Sieve, by specifying the container class, as in:
<processor name=sieveStuff class="our.sieve.container">
<code>sieve code</code>
</processor>
For backwards compatability, if 'class=' is omitted, the Mailet Container is
launched, same as it ever was.
With this change, a James deployment could 'mix and match' processors whose
logic is expressed in different languages. It is also conceivable to have a
James deployment without a Mailet Container.
Noel, does the above summarise "the major thought in [your] head"?
-- Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Synergy Systems Limited.
It may not represent the views of Synergy Systems Limited.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error,
please notify the sender by replying with "received in error" as the subject and then
delete it from your mailbox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
