james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <da...@apache.org>
Subject RE: Mailet API v2
Date Mon, 03 Jun 2002 12:30:39 GMT
Ok anything then, I stuck on ajp because my use cases are wholly concerned
with integrating tomcat webapps with james and vv.
The point is that i think there needs to be *some* protocol that will allow
james to be used in an integrated way with other applications using
configuration only, so that it can become a mail gateway without the need to
write special mailets for each special case.

I dont suggest that this be in the mailet API, although I did mention it in
the same mail (because I believe that its part of the same endgame of making
james more attractive to architects/developers), just that james embraces
the concept of running as a tool for other applications.
And a server daemon which processes richer requests than SMTP or POP seems
to me to be a requirement.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
> Sent: 03 June 2002 12:19
> To: James Developers List
> Subject: Re: Mailet API v2
> 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:
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>

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

View raw message