Exactly what I was thinking... Maybe I don't made it clear. So when I remove it from servers build how you would mantain your Build to be able to use torque ?
Bye Norman 2010/1/10, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 8:59 AM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> OpenJPA IMAP integration into JAMES is now complete. Its workin here >> without probs and is really fast compared to the torque >> implementation. > > should run faster if someone took on the asynchronous IO and streamed > message storage ;-) > >> I would be in favor to remove the whole torque implementation if >> everything works out and try to get some JCR based and File (Maildir) >> based MailboxManager in place. > > i'm not sure that having torque implementation does any harm or - > given that we want multiple backends - creates much more work ATM. > getting rid of torque would mean either abandoning existing IMAP users > (myself included) or creating an upgrade script for torque (which > would mean biting the bullet and starting to add administrative > instrumentation to IMAP). > > so - i'm not in favour of deleting the module from IMAP but am in > favour of excluding it in the james build. > > - robert > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
