On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 1:15 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 do not have any technical reason to keep the protocol handling heavily tied into the server. As long as it functionality doesn't change, I think there's merit in evolutionary rewrite of this code. Do you see this as requiring heavy lifting with major components rewritte? Or do you see this as a decoupling of sorts? My foggy head is telling me that SMTP and POP3 won't be too bad protocol wise but might be tough for configuration and some dependencies (mailbox access, user lists, etc...). IMAP hurts my brain given that it's asynchronous and has many harder features. -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
