james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Danny Angus" <danny.an...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Next-major plans
Date Wed, 08 Nov 2006 14:56:28 GMT
> Gossip: I read Andy's blog, if I remember correctly he's no more the
> JBoss Mail Server guy.

Thats right, but I've known Andy for a while and we don't always
agree, so getting consensus between the two of us is an indication
that the proposals might satisfy both James and non-James
applications.

> I review every of your commit :-) You know I "hate" JNDI, but I think
> there are also good things in your commit.
> - I like the MailFactory

Thank you, I've meant to do that since *forever* but never got round to it.

> - I like the string based lookup for repositories

looking up repositories is one thing which we do over and over again,
so I figure it is a good candidate for making it easy. What we need to
do is to ensure that it continues to apply to the masilbox manager
strategy, and that the API doesn't need to contain any knowledge of
James naming strategy. At most just mailet config params

> - I don't like a rich "User" object in the API

No neither do I! I'm working on a completely new model of
users/accounts/domains/addresses to replace it with but I'm going
round in circles.

> - I like the DataSource change,

Yeah, we need to support drivers which already offer
javax.sqlDataSource implementations (e.g Oracle)

> - I don't like the MailetContext => JNDI context move for simple value
> like HELLO_NAME and DEFAULT_DOMAIN (more code needed, less clear)

Yeah, I'm not too happy with it either but I'm not decided about what
would be good, we need to ensure that we don't prescribe (force on
people) a closed set of parameters.
Perhaps "Properties MailetContext.getProperties()" might be the answer.

>
> I have technical concern behind "likes" and "dislikes", but I think I
> said most of them, and I can give further details on demand.
> Hope this is a useful and clear summary of my view.

Yes great.


> I wrote a bunch of times that I guess your Mailet APIs proposal do not
> belong to next-major (backward compatible / branch in 1-2 months)
> release, but more probably to the following one.
> Can you confirm this? If so, please record this in the STATUS ;-)

At the moment there is no decision on what the changes will be, when
there is we can talk about timing.



> When you wrote this I already updated that file including this data:

Yes I saw that, thank you and well done.

> the
> question now is "do we agree that we've agreed" ? ;-)
> I thought we agreed but Noel for sure "ignore" this, and Bernd raised
> some concern on the hardness of the dates: do we need another
> discussion? Do we need another vote to really understand what we want to
> do? I'm lost, please help.

I think that if you have called a vote and recorded the result then we
have agreed.
If there is still doubt or disagreement I suggest we discuss it in a
separate thread on general@ because that is a PMC matter.
However I think that it might help if we could formulate some simple
VOTEs to clarify each point separately. I'll look into this.

d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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