james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Matthieu Baechler <mbaech...@linagora.com>
Subject server/protocols vs protocols (was Re: My thoughts on JMAP implementation)
Date Mon, 14 Dec 2015 07:19:59 GMT


On 13/12/2015 12:43, Tellier Benoit wrote:

[...]

>   - First point, I believe /server/protocols is only here to wrap up the
> /protocols stuff. We of course should have the servlets in
> server/protocols. The responsibilities of such server/protocols are for
> me to identify commands and encode responses + directly talk to the
> client. /protocols is responsible of interacting with other James
> entities (such as repositories and mailbox project) in order to reply to
> the user commands. Such an organization allows not to be tied to jetty.
> What do you think of it?

I'm ok with this idea, we took some shortcut while implementing this 
feature but we can now make it fit the usual James split of components.

Note that Jetty is already abstracted away. Servlet are not, but it 
might be difficult to abstract when we'll need to interact with headers 
in response. We'll see how to handle this.

> This, I guess mean moving the RequestHandler, and most of the models in
> /protocols. I don't believe it would be harder than that, and allow
> protocols/jmap to become the first lib for JMAP in JAVA (kind of
> advertisement for James ? Maybe it can be helpful...)

Not a lot of value right now but if people want to use it out of James 
context, why not ?

-- 
Matthieu Baechler

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