Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
there's a lot of code in IMAP-Mailbox. this creates a large barrier to
entry both for developers wanting to work on IMAP-Maibox and for
developers who want to work on other components.
i'd like to think about moving the whole of the IMAP-mailbox code base
out of server/trunk and into server/protocols/imap/trunk (say). this
move would include the sieve mailet.
-0. I don't think that disgregation of code will help: we already moved
mailet outside from james server. We made james server modular. I want to
see some releases before any other disgregation is done. I'd like to see
proofs that this road works for real before following it so much.
face facts: JAMES trunk is never going to be released - there just
isn't enough agreement within the developers. so we should aim to
factor out and release what we can agree on.
it's easy to have releases provided that the code released is in the
form of libraries of reasonable size
Right, but I don't really see how having IMAP-Mailbox in an external
library will make it easier to release JAMES server.
Either you remove all the modules that will depened on IMAP-Mailbox or
you will need to release IMAP-Mailbox BEFORE being able to release JAMES
server.
About the agreement within the developers: have you understood something
there is agreement upon?
Do you think that extracting more libraries to their own modules will
make it easier to have a release soon? How?
Releases should be the goal, and in the last year we only had 2 jSPF
releases and nothing else :-((
if you want more releases, step forward
Sorry but Norman and I already did it 17 months ago with a very concrete
proposal but we failed. Nothing changed since that time, so I don't
really see why it should work now.
Is IMAP-mailbox a standalone library? Has it any use separated from JAMES
Server code? Is there any developer working on that code lamenting the issue
of having to work with the whole "server" checked out?
yes (or should be), yes (service, axis, geronimo) and yes (happened a
couple of weeks ago, also noel reported to me that lots of people have
had issues)
Sorry but I don't get it: "james-server-imapmailbox-library" is
currently *3* classes for a total of 33KB of java sources: does this
really require an *external* module ??? Maybe instead you are talking
about more modules? In this case can you make an explicit list?
Developers interested in JAMES should better write messages to
server-dev. If people speaks with Noel can't be listened by me and other
PMC members. So please ask them to write to this list, so we can
understand what exactly is their issue.
Furhermore at "server" level we already have the TTB structure
(trunk/tags/branches), I will probably -1 adding a "protocol" folder at the
same level. IMHO it is against the least surprise principle.
just saves moving stuff down a level. also server/server doesn't make
much sense to me
- robert
Making a tree with 1000 simple leafs will not make developers life
easier. They instead will loose much more time trying to understand what
project calls a given method or what project contains a given feature
they want to alter/fix/test.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
