>
> This sounds legitimate to me.
That´s a relief to me
> Across the line, there is however the thought that the main - if not
> only - delivery of the Apache James project is a mail server
hummm, well the first line of the README does say
> *James* stands for *Java Apache Mail Enterprise Server!*
so i felt safe in assuming the primary product of the project was the mail
server :)
> Things like mailet-api, mailbox, protocols will end up with the same
>
naming than some over server components like (say) queue.
>
I don't know the project well enough to have an opinion, but these sound
like supporting components to the main product to me. It doesn't mean they
cannot be used outside of james server though.
If they are significant enough products they should probably live in their
own groupid which would prevent naming conflict
for instance
mailbox/pom.xml produces
`org.apache.james:apache-james-mailbox:${project.version}`
depending on how independent the module and its submodules are deemed to be
it could produce
`org.apache.james:mailbox:${project.version}` and have all submodules
prefixed by `mailbox-` same as `queue` and it seems to be what happened in
`protocols/ ` already indeed
or use a different namespace(aka groupId)
`org.apache.mailbox:mailbox:${project.version}` and have unprefixed
submodules
I also agree on the "iterative" approach.
>
Great, I'll initiate the first PR on my lunch break :)
Cheers
jean
