On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 7:15 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > i think we're quickly reaching a time where different agendas for > JAMES will start to come into conflict with one another. i believe > that many community problems just reflect problems with structure and > modularity. so again, i'm going to suggest a technical solution to > avoid a community problem. > > i think that sometime soon, people are going to want to look at > releasing (in some form) what's in trunk but IMAP is still under very > active development. once all functions are tested, next on the agenda > is a complete rewrite of the backend code. for the last week, IMAP > failures due to changes in mime4j broken JAMES. JAMES didn't really > need to upgrade until a more stable release but IMAP requires some of > the new functions. this conflict of interests led to a week of broken > tests. > > i've said before that i would really like to see the protocol handling > components moved out of JAMES server and into lightweight independent > libraries capable of embedded reuse elsewhere. this would open up uses > of these components in other environments. for example, by mixing > basic POP3 into a standard java application. the libraries would not > perform socket or thread management: they would be toolkits from which > mail servers could be built. they would have no coupling to avalon. > JAMES server 3.0 would be build up from these components adding in > container services and blending all together into a standard compliant > application. i think that this approach will increase the chances of a > 3.0 release (of some sort) happening as well as allowing other > projects to reuse JAMES components more easily. > > opinions?
I'm sort of lost on his one - especially since I don't contribute in this area. I trust you to decide the right thing. Brnd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
