On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> i'd like to try to push out a imap M1 this year. one of the remaining >> jobs is creating a website. so we need to decide upon an URL. >> >> http://james.apache.org/imap? http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap? >> http://james.apache.org/server/imap? > > http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap > > We used that structure in svn, maybe it's better to choose the same for > the web. > > About Demetrio comment I think we can give more or less visibility to > IMAP independently from the url we use.
the right position in subversion is a topic we should return to the reasoning behind james/protocol/imap was that it allowed a group of protocols library to be built up if they are factored out from the main server. i'm keen on this idea: i think that it offers easier maintenance in the long run, reduces pressure on server releases (individual protocol libraries have separate release cycles) and reduces the quantity of code that a new developer needs to learn to start contributing. however, i'm not sure how convinced other people were by this approach. an alternative argument is that IMAP has quite a complex internal module structure and that it's neater and more consistent to just add new protocols at the top level under james without the internal grouping. opinions? - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
