james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [IMAP] MessageRow and MessageFlags
Date Thu, 15 Mar 2007 13:28:58 GMT
robert burrell donkin ha scritto:
> On 3/14/07, Noel J. Bergman <noel@devtech.com> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>> > i can understand why some people may want to store message data in a
>> database
>>
>> > what i cannot understand is why JAMES insists that it *has* to be
>> > stored in a database
>>
>> Uh, it doesn't.  We have multiple mailstores, only one of which is DB 
>> based.
> 
> i suspect that we've been talking at slighty cross purposes. JAMES (in
> general) supports multiple backends for most protocols but not IMAP.

Please keep in mind that IMAP and mailboxmanager are FAR 
(architecturally speaking) from the rest of James.

Most committers/developers here will misunderstood you on this because 
Joachim worked a lot on that 2 packages but not many committers reviewed 
his code or his proposals.

I suggest you to use the words IMAP and mailboxmanager more often 
instead of "JAMES" when you talk about thea services ;-)

As an example, Danny's reply about storage compatibility does not apply 
to the IMAP/mailboxmanager stuff, because it is experimental and only 
present in our current trunk, so we don't need to provide backward 
compatibility for that: in fact it would be good if we refactor and find 
a "final" solution before a release, so we won't have to write 
conversion tools later.

> IMAP only has one implementation and IMHO the current API is tightly
> coupled to a single, database backed solution for message storage.
> IMHO a more powerful and flexible approach would be for IMAP enabling
> to act as a wrapper managing the meta-data but delegating message
> storage to a standard JAMES mailstore implementation.
> 
> - robert

Legacy James MailRepository was not enough for IMAP

IMAP started its own interfaces as a strawman to eventually be used as 
the default implementation once ready.

JDBC/Torque is the only committed implementation of the mailboxmanager: 
AFAIK there is no JDBC requirement on the service interface.

About the architecture of the mailboxmanager and the storage you can 
read archives: as a summary what we have is what Joachim did to have it 
done. If you feel you have better solutions/interfaces/architectures, 
please proceed. Maybe you want to use a branch for this, or if you feel 
confident on what you will do simply tag the current code and work on trunk.

Stefano


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