On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 8:18 PM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: > Comments inside.... > > Von meinem iPhone gesendet > > Am 29.11.2009 um 20:27 schrieb Robert Burrell Donkin > <[email protected]>: > >> On Sun, Nov 29, 2009 at 6:15 PM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm currently looking at JAMES and see what todo before cut the first >>> Milestone of JAMES 3.0. One of the things beside of remove Avalon >>> completly is the storing of messages. I don't like to much to have >>> different "stores" for IMAP and POP3. I would like to have only one >>> Store for both ( When switching from IMAP to POP3, only the INBOX >>> would be visible etc), so I wonder if we should remove the >>> MailRepository completly and use MailboxManager ( it would need some >>> hacking for POP3 maybe ) for all. >>> >>> WDYT ? >> >> IMAP is quite a different protocol and IMO it's a mistake to try to >> force POP3 and IMAP into a single expressive interface. >> > > I was just thinkin in this because it would making switching between the two > much easier. For example dovecot and courier can use the Same inbox wit imap > and pop3
a simple interface is not unreasonable but the last attempt was an expressive one >> i would prefer just an outlet style interface and rely on attributes >> for folders etc. this would allow other outlets (eg JMS) to be >> unified. >> >> i think something as simple >> >> void deliver(Mail mail, String url) [url might be >> 'imap://r...@localhost' or 'james://r...@localhost' or >> 'mysql://r...@localhost:5781] >> >> opens a lot of interesting possibilities >> >> then the folder stuff in Sieve etc could be handled as mail >> attributes. so, the Sieve script would set 'org.apache.james.FOLDER' >> or 'org.apache.james.TAG' to be 'cool/james' which local (or remote >> ;-) IMAP adapters would then interpret as directories whereas POP3 >> would ignore. >> >> might even be able to lose the url by relying on an attribute eg >> 'org.apache.james.DELIVERY_URL' >> >> then we'd have >> >> void out(Mail mail) >> >> simple but powerful >> >> >> this might allow us to take another look at mail pipelining in terms of >> >> void in(Mail mail) and void out(Mail mail) >> >> interfaces >> >> - robert > > Hm Not sure if I get it, some more details maybe? not sure i have time for a worked example but the idea is that there aren't any details: just use the simplest uniform interface with Mail meta-data for anything different like folders - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
