Danny Angus wrote:
On 11/7/06, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Reading what's going on on the mailet api side I think that we won't
include any change on mailet apis in next-major. The current proposal is
a strawman implementation and it needs a full non backward compatible
rewrite of the server.
I hope that over the next week or so I will be in a position to make
some detailed proposals about the API. Andy Oliver has been great to
bounce ideas off.
Gossip: I read Andy's blog, if I remember correctly he's no more the
JBoss Mail Server guy.
The fork is indeed a straw man, but please note that it isn't just the
API thats being changed, I'm testing my ideas out by changing the
server as well. In fact the head of the fork builds and runs with a
fairly comprehensive array of mailets deployed. One of my aims is to
ensure that James can be modified without too much pain to support the
API changes.
I review every of your commit :-) You know I "hate" JNDI, but I think
there are also good things in your commit.
- I like the MailFactory
- I like the string based lookup for repositories
- I don't like a rich "User" object in the API
- I like the DataSource change,
- I don't like the MailetContext => JNDI context move for simple value
like HELLO_NAME and DEFAULT_DOMAIN (more code needed, less clear)
I have technical concern behind "likes" and "dislikes", but I think I
said most of them, and I can give further details on demand.
Hope this is a useful and clear summary of my view.
I'd also like to move the API out to its own sub-project before we
change it, so that the API can be released with a test-bed of some
kind to allow mailet authors to change their mailets before they
upgrade the server, and to allow Server to upgrade to support the API
changes at its own pace, and not forced by the pace of change of the
API.
I wrote a bunch of times that I guess your Mailet APIs proposal do not
belong to next-major (backward compatible / branch in 1-2 months)
release, but more probably to the following one.
Can you confirm this? If so, please record this in the STATUS ;-)
Can you write what you think "we" have decided as I understand you don't
feel you have decided the following:
------------
"next-major":
- based on current trunk
- storage and config.xml compatible with 2.3.0
- ETA: branch on Dec 2006/Jan 2007, release on Mar 2007
---------
Please people, if we think we've agreed something record this stuff in
the STATUS file then we can stop discussing it and move forwards. :-)
d.
When you wrote this I already updated that file including this data: the
question now is "do we agree that we've agreed" ? ;-)
I thought we agreed but Noel for sure "ignore" this, and Bernd raised
some concern on the hardness of the dates: do we need another
discussion? Do we need another vote to really understand what we want to
do? I'm lost, please help.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
