james-general mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernd Fondermann <bf_...@brainlounge.de>
Subject mailet api project [was: Re: [VOTE] mailet-api@ status]
Date Thu, 16 Nov 2006 21:04:33 GMT
Steve Brewin wrote:
> Danny Angus wrote:
> <snipped/>
> 
> A further thought is where would implementations of the different versions
> of the mailet API best live? If we spin out a mailet API sub-project one
> <could> argue that the implementations should live elsewhere too. 

If the mailet API should ever become an equivalent to servlet API or the 
kind, the API should seek standardization by JCP or some appropriate body.

The reference implementation could live here as a subproject or incubate 
into a TLP, a process we can start setting up but whose result is open 
at the beginning (ASF board promotes to top-level when appropriate).

> To take
> this to its logical conclusion, we would have
> 1) A mailet api project

No need for this in case of a standardization.

> 2) A mailet implementations project dependent on versions of (1) above

subproject/TLP with own mailing list etc.

> 3) The James server project dependent on versions (2) above and by inference
> (1) above

the dependencies is already there in terms that James Server depends on 
the abstracted API specification.

> Its a little more complicated, but it is clean. One of the main reasons for
> doing any of this is because it enables others to adopt the mailet API and
> clean implementations of the corresponding mailets. Right now one must grab
> James server in order to get them, which is far from clean.

Agreed.

   Bernd

Mime
View raw message