On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM, Serge Knystautas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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?
i see this just as an exercise in decoupling. the protocols very nearly now just plug into the socket handling stuff. > 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...). configuration is a major issue in JAMES: it ties us to avalon and prevents use in other containers. one solution would be decouple POJOs and leave configuration to the server. > IMAP hurts my brain given that it's > asynchronous and has many harder features. IMAP hurts my brain too :-) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
