On 3/14/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> i can understand why some people may want to store message data in a
database
> what i cannot understand is why JAMES insists that it *has* to be
> stored in a database
Uh, it doesn't. We have multiple mailstores, only one of which is DB based.
i suspect that we've been talking at slighty cross purposes. JAMES (in
general) supports multiple backends for most protocols but not IMAP.
IMAP only has one implementation and IMHO the current API is tightly
coupled to a single, database backed solution for message storage.
IMHO a more powerful and flexible approach would be for IMAP enabling
to act as a wrapper managing the meta-data but delegating message
storage to a standard JAMES mailstore implementation.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
