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: Roadmap? Or maybe not... [WAS Re: [VOTE] next-major from trunk will be 3.0]
Date Thu, 02 Aug 2007 17:12:24 GMT
Danny Angus ha scritto:
> On 8/1/07, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>> You seems so secure about what happened and what was the problem.
>> There has never been stealth in my behaviour. NEVER: I'd like to know
>> how did you created such opinion (hope not talking with Noel or Danny,
>> but instead reading some old thread)
>> If you are really right then it was a pity that no one understood this
>> in the last 2 years and no one proposed such a solution.
> Thats not strictly true, we have long understood the need to break
> James up, robert just happened to be motivated to actually do it.

I don't remember anyone suggesting the modularisation as a solution to
our problems (at least since I joined JAMES, that is before the problems
started anyway ;-) ).

I just ran a search about this and only found a message from me on 24
May 2006, titled "Maven2 opinions" [1] including a point #4: "It will
allow us to split James in subprojects: mailet-api, mailet-impl, core,
smtp, pop3, nntp, fetchmail, mailets, spoolmanager having well-defined
dependencies between modules. This will improve the self-documentation
provided by james sourcecode (it makes much more clear the modules and
the dependencies) and maybe a step towards OSGi bundles." (context: at
that time many PMC members liked osgi and I was proposing maven because
it was simpler to me and my skills to achieve modularization via this
tool instead of ant). I suggest anyone reading that maven2 thread now,
it is interesting to see how much I was ignoring others' opinions.

The previous reference I can find is from january 2005 (notice it is
more than 2 years ago) and it was about "James-NG" [2] that is something
that probably was discussed before I joined the team because no one
talked about this after that date.

Not that proving that it was discussed or not will solve anything now,
but I'm very "sensible" to interpretations of the past and I think that
my statement was "strictly true" ;-).




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

View raw message