Joachim Draeger wrote:
Am Samstag, den 08.07.2006, 13:41 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:
are you really making that good progress you are already discussing
advanced features, or are quotas required by IMAP?
Well, the progress is near to alpha for basic commands. What really is
needed now is starting an Imap capable storage back-end.
It is great how hard you are working on the IMAP topic. I hope to get a
chance to review it soon!
That would be great! At the moment I make only sporadic changes to the
draft API interfaces on SVN.
I'd more or less stick to your JIRA postings/attachements (as JIRA is
one of our 'official' project resources).
Things would get more dynamic with external input. :-) It's really
difficult to fit every need and to keep things simple.
can't promise anything, but at least it's on my agenda.
Also, we have to keep in mind how to integrate your code with the James
codebase. But that's for another thread...
I think a lot about that. I also have some ideas. One question is for
example how could James benefit from a logical namespace for message
repositories / mailboxes?
But IMO the first solution will be to allow optionally plugging in the
namespace/hierarchy aware repository and using wrappers for legacy code.
(a NamespaceMailRepository implementation).
So the codebase keeps stable.
namespaces for repos is something which is also going around in my mind
for some time. maybe we should have a separate discussion about it in
near future!
BTW, are your propositions based on RFC 2087 or is this another beast?
I did it according to RFC 2087 and JavaMail. The procedure I described
as a proposal for JDBC is just a possibility not a requirement.
What I don't want to do is just hacking in a JDBC implementation and
throw everything away when the time has come for the next feature.
If we are aware of what we'll need in the future we could now try to
make the right decisions.
well, this sounds like the waterfall model to me. let's make decisions
when decisions are due, it's impossible to take everything into account
beforehand. And I don't think you'd have to "throw everything away", if
you'd skip thinking about quota now. instead I think one can yield much
better results by concentrating on current tasks.
"Waterfall model" is really getting a swear-word in today's agile
development world, isn't it? ;-)
;-) it is - I apologize, didn't want to swear at you... ;-)
No waterfall model, just an overview. No complete elaborated plan, just
a few thoughts and drafts. And I promise just to skip thinking about
quota right now, because it should be enough as an overview. :-)
we could go on. but we must keep in mind the whole discussion is
repeated in the future when quotas eventually are reconsidered. ;-)
Bernd
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
