james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Harmeet Bedi" <hb...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Multiple blocks and use of assembly.xml
Date Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:58:33 GMT
[Charles Benett]
> James is not working properly because of the way it was split into
> multiple blocks.
> James.java contextualises itself (from assembly or config) but the
> smtpserver block is not getting contextualised properly (no Hello name).

The servername/helo name is a problem. When I split it up I mentioned that
this is not done and supplied default values in the code.

However servername/heloname does not affect the functionality of the
protocol servers.
Could you give a few more details on - James not working properly.
I mean what protocol server, is there a problem with the repository. What
configuration etc.
Would love to help to get James working properly.

[Charles Benett]
> We can either reverse the multiple blocks move, so that james
> contextualises a component - smtpserver. Or, we have to write smtpserver
> so that it gets data from config.xml.

Will attempt to change smtp server this weekend so that it picks data from
config.xml. I was busy in the weekdays, and I thought there was a James
problem due to Cornerstone. Anyway will attempt that unless someone else
wants to go ahead bvefore.

[Charles Benett]
> What was the rationale for having separate blocks (rather than separate
> components) for each protocol? I'm not convinced this is a good design.

The thread 'having separate blocks for protocol servers' would provide the
context. The First converstation was somewhere around April 1 or 2. I
formally proposed doing this on April18, got positive feedback and no
negetive feedback.
Some of the advantages cited were
- This is more flexible
- Will clean james/James.java
- Allow more than one protocol server instance to exist for each protocol.
For example there could be POP3 available via Plain Socket and TLS. There
are many advantages to this, for example one could put up a firewall and
expose only the TLS POP3 outside.

Why is the one block design better than the multiple factored blocks ?
Creating functionality out of assembling blocks was the one of the main
ideas in Avalon.
James.java seemed to be duplicating some of the facilities already present
in the Kernel.
I think we should not roll things back, because that would mean going back,
not foward. Let us instead fix problems in the current snapshot.


Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

To unsubscribe, e-mail: james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message