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 Fri, 14 Jul 2006 12:54:30 GMT
Am Montag, den 10.07.2006, 16:18 +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.
> 
> I'd more or less stick to your JIRA postings/attachements (as JIRA is 
> one of our 'official' project resources).

I understand that. But as I said before it's always a lot of work to
make a release even if it is only a draft.
I made the effort and brought the interfaces to some kind of a
consistent state and attached it to Jira.

> >>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.
> namespaces for repos is something which is also going around in my mind 
> for some time. maybe we should have a separate discussion about it in 
> near future!

I hope soon, because it's getting a blocker for my work on imap.

> > 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. :-)
> 
> we could go on. but we must keep in mind the whole discussion is 
> repeated in the future when quotas eventually are reconsidered. ;-)

The optimist would say ideas will keep growing until then and we'll be
able to discuss on a higher level. :-)
Well, I agree there are more important topics now.

Joachim


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


Mime
View raw message