james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joachim Draeger ...@joachim-draeger.de>
Subject Re: IMAP Draft: Quota
Date Mon, 10 Jul 2006 14:00:02 GMT
Am Samstag, den 08.07.2006, 13:41 +0200 schrieb Bernd Fondermann:

> >>are you really making that good progress you are already discussing 
> >>advanced features, or are quotas required by IMAP?
> > 
> > 
> > Well, the progress is near to alpha for basic commands. What really is
> > needed now is starting an Imap capable storage back-end. 
> It is great how hard you are working on the IMAP topic. I hope to get a 
> chance to review it soon!

That would be great! At the moment I make only sporadic changes to the
draft API interfaces on SVN.
Things would get more dynamic with external input. :-) It's really
difficult to fit every need and to keep things simple.

> Also, we have to keep in mind how to integrate your code with the James 
> codebase. But that's for another thread...

I think a lot about that. I also have some ideas. One question is for
example how could James benefit from a logical namespace for message
repositories / mailboxes? 
But IMO the first solution will be to allow optionally plugging in the
namespace/hierarchy aware repository and using wrappers for legacy code.
(a NamespaceMailRepository implementation).
So the codebase keeps stable.

> BTW, are your propositions based on RFC 2087 or is this another beast?

I did it according to RFC 2087 and JavaMail. The procedure I described
as a proposal for JDBC is just a possibility not a requirement.
> > What I don't want to do is just hacking in a JDBC implementation and
> > throw everything away when the time has come for the next feature.
> > If we are aware of what we'll need in the future we could now try to
> > make the right decisions. 
> well, this sounds like the waterfall model to me. let's make decisions 
> when decisions are due, it's impossible to take everything into account 
> beforehand. And I don't think you'd have to "throw everything away", if 
> you'd skip thinking about quota now. instead I think one can yield much 
> better results by concentrating on current tasks.

"Waterfall model" is really getting a swear-word in today's agile
development world, isn't it? ;-)
No waterfall model, just an overview. No complete elaborated plan, just
a few thoughts and drafts. And I promise just to skip thinking about
quota right now, because it should be enough as an overview. :-)


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

View raw message