On Sat, Dec 26, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Eric MacAdie <e...@macadie.net> wrote: > I do not mean to rain on anyone's parade, but I do have one concern. I am > running James on a VPS host with about 256 MB of memory, and right now James > uses about 50 MB or so. I noticed from > http://people.apache.org/builds/james/nightly/bin/ that the Spring version > is twice as big as the Phoenix/Avalon version. I do not have a lot of memory > to spare on my VPS account, and I would prefer not to upgrade (I am looking > for a job and money is tight). > > If James with Spring slows stuff down, I may have to look for something else > to handle email. Maybe I am making a big deal out of nothing, but a cursory > glance makes it appear that size may be an issue.
the james 2.x branch is mature, fast and small. james 3.x has a lot more function but the space cost is high. the only reason why 2.x has been neglected is lack of developers willing to maintain it. if there are people who care about a small version of james then there's no reason why those features that will run small can't be backported. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
