Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>> ATM the cryptographic mailet code is packaged into: >>> >>> * org.apache.james.security >>> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/crypto/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/security/) >>> * org.apache.james.transport.mailets.smime >>> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/crypto/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/transport/mailets/smime/) >>> * org.apache.james.transport.matchers.smime >>> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/crypto/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/transport/matchers/smime/) >>> >>> i was wondering about repackaging >>> >>> basing on 'org.apache.mailet.crypto' would follow the tentative >>> convention adopted in base mailets but i'm open to suggestions >>> >>> opinions? >> I'm fine with repackaging, but we should remember that this will mean >> that we need many <mailetpackages>/<matcherpackages> in our config, and >> that we won't provide backward compatibility for config.xml unless we >> add some hardcoded hack or we add a compatibility layer with >> matchers/mailets in the old places. > > crypto is little bit of a special case (it isn't in the 2.x code > stream and it's not packaged now under o.a.j.transport)
Good point! > but i agree that this is an issue that needs discussion before standard > >> I don't know anymore if we are still on a backward compatible config.xml >> or if we decided to abandon that goal. > > IMHO more detail is needed about what a commitment means in detail > > are we committing to: > > 1. maintain compatibility with 2.3 or with earlier versions of 3.0? > 2. maintain compatibility with custom configurations? What we tried to commit in past was being able to start james trunk with most james 2.3 user's *config.xml*. This meant adding many hacks every time we changed the granularity of components in order to keep the old conf working, or almost working. IMHO either we keep this and really try to run james 2.3 config.xml or we completely give up with phoenix style config.xml and introduce a whole new method to configure. Having a similar config method with an incompatible "runtime" will make people to try to use their config (even if we explain what is compatible and what is not) and we'll spend too much time in user support. Furthermore IMO we should keep (or provide support for) *bidirectional* compatibility for the storage layers (db/dbfile/file for mail/spool/users repository). This is a must to let people try the new code and eventually revert to their old installation if something does not work as expected. As a system administrator I'll think thrice before upgrading something that change my data format. We still have people trying to use james 2.2.0 !?!?! and it is a PITA to support these people (at least for me as I used james 2.2.0 more than 3 years ago the last time). Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
