Date: Sat, 25 Jan 2003 21:43:41 +0100 From: Harrie Hazewinkel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: Ben Hyde <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 1) [snip] I believe it would be better to > add first a good message store API in such a way that different > types of mailboxes and databases can be used. The protocol > module should do only do the protocol part plus an example > message store. I disagree. If you intend to introduce a message store API, then separate module should implement an 'message store'. Otherwise it would make little sense to create the API at all. Though I agree, that a message store API sounds interesting. > 2) Also the module/protocol is not a complete. For instance, it does > not implement AUTH command. This leads to other, new auth-type-modules (especially for message store protocols - pop, imap, nntp?). SASL is such a plugable authentication. Though it fails to be easily extendable. Perhaps an ASF xp implementation of the RFC is of interest. > Also by adding a module like this, > the complete group should also think of making Apache > somehow a bit more 'different protocol friendly'. I understand > this is already a topic of the past (2 years ago), but > now it becomes valid request to ask, IMHO. I'm not sure if it makes sense to turn an http server in an all-purpose multi-protocol beast. I'd favour a number of servers which rely on a set of well-defined libs (APR, APR-util and what else?). A super-server would not be easy to administer (bringing down pop just to restart http?). And perhaps some memory models suit one protocol better than others. Masi
