james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Robert Burrell Donkin" <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [MailboxAPI] Factories Factories Factories
Date Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:11:47 GMT
On Nov 7, 2007 1:38 PM, Danny Angus <danny@apache.org> wrote:
> On 06/11/2007, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>
> > I think that when you store a message into a mailbox (LocalDelivery) you
> > don't have a real user, unless we introduce a "Spooler" or "Remote" user
> > to be used in that use case (I don't like it too much).
>
> Oh I see. Hmmm, no I don't like the sound if that much either.

yep

TorqueMailbox ignores the user. the IMAP client manages mailbox
separation by prefixing with user name. IMHO the SoC is wrong here and
the design of this part of IMAP needs sorting out. if MailboxManager
is responsible for authorization then the MailboxManager should be
also responsible for the prefixing. conversely, if the IMAP client is
responsible for namespacing and authorisation then the MailboxManager
should take abstract names after conversion and ignore the user.

opinions?

one instance of each mailbox (rather than one-per-user) would allow
concurrency and caching to be managed more easily by API implementors.
it's inconvenient to have to share locks between multiple instances
differing only by the user.

IMHO it would be better to introduce an explicit concept of a session
created by the MailboxManager and passed into each Mailbox API method.
this would be a step towards the transactions that stefano is so keen
on. user data could be included as optional meta-data.

opinions?

- robert

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