james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Hammant <Paul_Hamm...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Mailet API v2
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2002 11:19:25 GMT
Danny,

>>>I also wondered if we should support ajp13
>>>      
>>>
>>Do we really need Yet Another Transport Protocol?
>>    
>>
><snip/>
>The idea of using ajp for this is that it exists already and allows non-java
>applications to make or respond to these requests, and recieve the
>responses.
>It allows the mail server and the content server to be remote from one
>another, and avoids the limitations of the mail protocols, which dont
>provide very sophisticated requests and responses.
>  
>
I'm against ajp for JAMES (for what it is worth).

Purist reason :  Do not tie an API to a particular transport

Explanation : We're rolling out JMS blocks for general phoenix app use. 
 We're already rolled out a block that uses Graham Glass's truly 
excellent Glue product to publish arbiatary interfaces to remote SOAP 
enabled langauges and systems.  We're rolled out the transport package 
in Cornerstone to similarly publish arbitary interfaces using AltRMI 
(you guys have still not checked this out).  When the Axis team have a 
product that is as simple to use as Glue, we'll have a block for that. 
 If Netscape make available a Java API for the truly-visionary XPCOM. 
we'll write a block for that.  Same story for .Net (assuming we can 
masquerade as the proprietary TCP based transport).  

If we could make a general ajp13 adapter for arbitarty interfaces, then 
perhaps it would be a good thing.  Asa general transport rather than a 
tightly-coupled solution for Maillets, that is.

Regards,

- Paul



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


Mime
View raw message