Gossip: I read Andy's blog, if I remember correctly he's no more the JBoss Mail Server guy.
Thats right, but I've known Andy for a while and we don't always agree, so getting consensus between the two of us is an indication that the proposals might satisfy both James and non-James applications.
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
Thank you, I've meant to do that since *forever* but never got round to it.
- I like the string based lookup for repositories
looking up repositories is one thing which we do over and over again, so I figure it is a good candidate for making it easy. What we need to do is to ensure that it continues to apply to the masilbox manager strategy, and that the API doesn't need to contain any knowledge of James naming strategy. At most just mailet config params
- I don't like a rich "User" object in the API
No neither do I! I'm working on a completely new model of users/accounts/domains/addresses to replace it with but I'm going round in circles.
- I like the DataSource change,
Yeah, we need to support drivers which already offer javax.sqlDataSource implementations (e.g Oracle)
- I don't like the MailetContext => JNDI context move for simple value like HELLO_NAME and DEFAULT_DOMAIN (more code needed, less clear)
Yeah, I'm not too happy with it either but I'm not decided about what would be good, we need to ensure that we don't prescribe (force on people) a closed set of parameters. Perhaps "Properties MailetContext.getProperties()" might be the answer.
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.
Yes great.
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 ;-)
At the moment there is no decision on what the changes will be, when there is we can talk about timing.
When you wrote this I already updated that file including this data:
Yes I saw that, thank you and well done.
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.
I think that if you have called a vote and recorded the result then we have agreed. If there is still doubt or disagreement I suggest we discuss it in a separate thread on general@ because that is a PMC matter. However I think that it might help if we could formulate some simple VOTEs to clarify each point separately. I'll look into this. d. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
