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: Questions on the Mail and MailRepository interfaces
Date Wed, 16 May 2007 13:48:11 GMT
Danny Angus ha scritto:
> On 5/15/07, robert burrell donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com> wrote:
>> IMHO each JAMES subproject should be a pure component containing POJOs
>> suitable for reuse with no coupling on JAMES server. a library module
>> in the server should adapt the component for use in JAMES. a
>> deployment module should tool the component for deployment by
>> providing configuration and other services.
> +1 This has been my "vision" for years, I just didn't want to be
> provocative (again!).
> d,

I think there is nothing provocative there: it is probably the only
thing we all agreed upon multiple times ;-) (well, sometimes we even all
agreed on something and then someone complained against the one trying
to do what we agreed upon <--- THIS is provocative! :-P )

The main problem is that people that didn't place the hands in the code
consider this a "minor task" and everytime I point them to some old
thread where I analyzed what we have to do in practice and what are some
of the unresolved problems with serviceable children objects generation
and so on.

IMO many JAMES Server components are obsolete and should be rewritten
from scratch. The JCR+JMS approach for repositories is for sure a good
step. There are many to do.

As another example my "controversial" (never applied) Fetchmail
refactoring was done also in this direction. I extracted 3 top level
objects that are more easy to be refactored in non-avalonized components
in a following step).

Good luck to everyone trying the POJO road. If *he* will ask help I'll
be really glad to collaborate.


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

View raw message