james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Eric Charles <e...@apache.org>
Subject Re: What's in a store?
Date Mon, 20 Sep 2010 10:46:59 GMT
  Hi,

It's always possible to inject the mailboxmanager in mailets 
(ToRepository),... but we would  really gain to unify/simplify the 2.3 
mail storage with the 3.0 one.

In 2.3, we have such class hierarchy:

Repository
+- AbstractFileRepository
     +- File_Persistent_Object_Repository
     +- File_Persistent_Stream_Repository

MailRepository
+- AbstractMailRepository
     +- FileMailRepository
     +- JCRMailRepository
     +- JDBCMailRepository
+- MBoxMailRepository
+- SpoolRepository
     +- InMemorySpoolRepository
     +- MailStoreSpoolRepository

Store
+- AbstractMailStore
     +- SpringMailStore

In short, the SpringMailStore is responsible to register the 
MailRepositories and to select them.

In Mailbox projects introduced for 3.0, we have:

MailboxManager
+- StoreMailboxManager
     +- InMemoryMailboxManager
     +- JCRMailboxManager
     +- JPAMailboxManager
     +- MaildirMailboxManager

With new 3.0 implementation, we only can deliver in one-and-only-one 
store (jpa, jcr,...).
We should overcome this limitation.

Way to go further...:

We should also discuss on the future way to evolve. There are different 
options/steps to go further with that unification/simplification:

A/ Should we consider the MaiboxManager as just another MailStore, so 
developing a MailboxManagerMailStoreAdapter class and add the needed 
entries to the mailstore.xml, so the existing SpringMailStore mecanic is 
invoked.

B/ Or simplifying and removing the Store and MailRepository hierarchy.

C/ Any other options... ?

This could be also thought in parallel with a discussion on 
UsersRepository hierarchy, so we have coherent way of working within James.
I we go for option B/, it would be logical to also simplify the 
UsersRepository hierarchy.
(Think also the DomainList has no Repository notion).

I think we should also extract the 2.3 classes/interfaces, and place 
them in the correct mailbox projects (also create new mailbox projects 
for example apache-james-mailbox-file that will contain 
FileMailRepository,..).

WDYT?

Eric


On 6/09/2010 08:24, Eric Charles wrote:
>  OK, we've done a picture of the current situation.
>
> I would like to pick an simple example as strong requirement to unify 
> the store/repository (whatever then name is) API across all projects.
> In spoolmanager.xml, we define respositoryPath such as 
> db://maildb/spam. These repositoryPath are used in mailets,...
> Let's say I want to develop a mailet that under certain conditions 
> stores the mail in a folder (let's say "spam" folder) of the user.
> If the mailbox is for example JCR, I have no standard way to define 
> the folder path in the james-server "repository" syntax. Or I must 
> invent one... (jcr://...? or a more generic one mailbox:///? because I 
> don't want to change spoolmanager.xml if spring-beans.xml changes)
>
> If both are linked, we have clear conventions to implement.
> And we can always release any project when we want.
>
> This is why I think we should link in a way or another the 
> james-server repository and the imap store. Not only on syntax 
> extension, but also on implementing classes.
>
> Tks,
>
> Eric
>
> On 6/09/2010 07:49, Norman Maurer wrote:
>> Comments inline..
>>
>>
>> 2010/9/6 Eric Charles<eric@apache.org>:
>>>   Hi Norman,
>>>
>>> pop3server has store in its pom, but does not really need it. I will
>>> carefully test before commit the changes.
>> Should be safe to remove it then..
>>
>>> JPAUser is accessed in JPAUsersRepository (instanciated via the 
>>> LocalUsers
>>> repository) while JPAMailbox is managed in JPAMailboMapper is 
>>> accessed via
>>> JPAMailboxMapper. JPAUsersRepository and JPAMailboxMapper are 
>>> created in
>>> completely different ways.
>> Ok, I think the "mapper stuff" is just in imap to make implementing
>> different Mailbox stores easy. So its ok to have it work different.
>>
>>> I see that james-server has a whole infrastructure around 
>>> "repository". Imap
>>> has not that infrastructure and rely on implementing different 
>>> stores in
>>> different projects. The questions are:
>>> 1.- must imap go to server repository infra?
>> Not sure..
>>
>>> 2.- must server repository infra be simplified and merged with the imap
>>> approach?
>> -1 No
>>
>>> 3.- must we leave that separated?
>> Have them seperate allow to have a independend release cycle. Well I
>> know imap had no release yet but I hope to get it done this week.
>>
>>> btw, even in james-server, all persistence does not go the same way:
>>> domainlist does not work completely with repository.
>>> If you take the JDBCDomainList, it needs a repositoryPath which is
>>> db://maildb/domain (I don't see directly the relation with the
>>> persistence.xml for the mailbox, and however, it stores in the same
>>> database...). However, if you take the JPADomainList, it does not 
>>> need any
>>> "repository", because it's using the persistence.xml.
>>> I mean, the repository principle has some exceptions in james-server.
>>>
>> The RepositoryPath stuff is from the good old days. With this concept
>> its possible to use more then one db. Like db://maildb/domain (db =
>> maildb, table = domain) and db://maildb2/domain (db= maildb2, table =
>> domain). The whole concept is a "left-over" from using excalibur and
>> avalon. To be honest I don't care if we remove it at all, one db
>> should be enough...
>>
>>> Tks,
>>>
>>> Eric
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/09/2010 20:11, Norman Maurer wrote:
>>>> Hi Eric,
>>>>
>>>> comments inside..
>>>>
>>>> 2010/9/5 Eric Charles<eric@apache.org>:
>>>>>   Hi All,
>>>>>
>>>>> The store project has the mappers and imports some classes of mailbox
>>>>> (mailboxmanager,...), so 'store depends on mailbox'.
>>>>>
>>>>> To access some mailbox/subscription, you need to use the maibox 
>>>>> project
>>>>> (example: imap-processor depends on mailbox, and imapProcessor 
>>>>> bean is
>>>>> injected with mailboxmanager/subscriptionManager). So far, so good.
>>>>>
>>>>> mailbox is the interface to the mailboxes,...": I had a quick look 
>>>>> at the
>>>>> pop3server dependencies and saw that it was depending on store. I 
>>>>> didn't
>>>>> find that logical, removed it, and it was still compiling. Logical...
>>>>> Thinking in "what depends on what" helps much.
>>>> pop3server should not depend on store and only depend on mailbox. If
>>>> its not the case its a bug..
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> However, the other '"domain classes" (user, virutalusertable, 
>>>>> domain in
>>>>> the
>>>>> sense 'domain.tld') are accessed in a all different way. This comes
>>>>> probably
>>>>> from the history (before using imap projects, server used its own 
>>>>> storage
>>>>> system which has been kept). In spring-beans.xml, you've got:
>>>>> - users-store: org.apache.james.container.spring.SpringUsersStore 
>>>>> class
>>>>> being injected via @Resource
>>>>> - virtualusertable-store :
>>>>> org.apache.james.container.spring.SpringVirtualUserTableStore being
>>>>> injected
>>>>> via @Resource
>>>>> - domainlist: XML/JDBC/JPADomainList being injected via @Resource
>>>>>
>>>>> I see there 3 differents access to the persisted domain classes 
>>>>> (Mailbox,
>>>>> Message, Subscription, Domain, User, VirtualUserTable):
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Injection of mailbox project (MailboxManager, MessageManager,
>>>>>      SubscriptionManger,...) beans
>>>>>   2. Injection of spring-common project (SpringUsersStore,
>>>>>      SpringVirtualUserTableStore) beans
>>>>>   3. Injection of core-function project (XML/JDBC/JPADomainList) 
>>>>> beans
>>>>>
>>>>> If you persist everything in a database, accesses for JPAUser is done
>>>>> completely differently compared to the JPAMailbox for example.
>>>>>
>>>> Could you explain whats the dfference ?
>>>>
>>>>> Coming to the point, should we:
>>>>>
>>>>>   1. Continue to live with heterogeneous access the persistence 
>>>>> layer?
>>>>>   2.   Have uniform access to persistence for all services and all
>>>>>      domains? In this case, a store project would be a good name, but
>>>>>   is
>>>>> already taken... we could always rename the existing one...
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>>
>>>>> Eric
>>>>>
>>>>> PS: I didn't even talked of the AbstractFileRepository
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> The whole *Store stuff is just a pita (james-server).. The idea with
>>>> its was that you can configure for example different UserRepositories
>>>> and just lookup the right one via the UsersStore. So its really
>>>> flexible. However the loading of the classes + injecting the right
>>>> dependencies is really complicated with this. I'm open to new ideas to
>>>> make it more easy :)
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Bye,
>> Norman
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>


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