Hi Raphaël,
> Yes, that's the global idea. But we differ about what is the "thing". For me > the "thing", or the product is James, a mail server where you can easily > configure a specific business logic. So the product serves different > protocols: SMTP, IMAP, JMAP, etc., can be managed (CLI / webadmin) and of > course can store data. > > Then comes the flavors: the one-node DB flavor, the only SMTP flavor, the > distributed flavor, etc. Your explanation makes sense to me, but I am not qualified to judge if it is the “right” thing or not, so I’ll let others comment. It sounds like your opinion differs from those who would call these “products”. I’ll have to let you guys duke it out. :-) I can say that from a beginner’s perspective, so far I do not find it “easy” to configure James. But perhaps I will get there yet, and hopefully the new documentation will help. >> So maybe “RDB storage” vs. “filesystem storage” could be different flavors >> of the “Basic Server”?? I.e. they both have the same objective and are the >> same “thing", but with a small variant that is likely a result of personal >> preference. > > > We cannot configure "Basic server" to have so different implementations. And > I think we don't want, as we cannot say that the "RDB storage" implementation > works in a same way than the "filesystem storage". > > Flavors can anyway be configured for some needs, for example the > "Distributed"/"Advanced" flavor can be configured to have a swift object > storage or a s3 object storage. The user repository could be configured to be > local of the flavor (DB / Cassandra) or based on LDAP. > > Does it makes sense? Yes and no. To configure a storage component to use one type of another makes perfect sense to me. So to configure swift vs. s3 or DB vs. Cassandra, that makes good sense to me. But not to be able to configure filesystem vs. RDB does not make sense to me. > But maybe then the name of the flavors should not be Minimal/Basic/Advanced, > but more based on what value they bring to the user, for example: > Local/Redundant/Distributed. Very good idea!! 👍👍👍 That is the missing concept I was looking for. Thanks! Cheers, =David --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
