Mark wrote:
Niklas,
Are these codecs that you mention (POP3, SMTP, IMAP) publicly available
right now?
Thanks
Hi Mark,
No they are not publicly available at the moment. As I mention below
there are some MINA based open source projects I'm aware of which
implement SMTP and POP3. Maybe they can provide what you are looking for?
If you're looking for SMTP you could have a look at SubEthaSMTP,
http://subethasmtp.tigris.org/. They have a MINA codec for SMTP commands
based on MINA's text codec. Also, HausMail,
http://hausmail.safehaus.org/, has code to decode POP3 and SMTP
commands. HausMail doesn't seem to use ProtocolCodecFilter but rather a
custom decoder filter.
HTH
/Niklas
On Jan 21, 2008 3:03 AM, Niklas Therning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Trustin Lee wrote:
Okay. Then it's time for restructuring. (Excited :) We have
ftpserver, AHC and Asyncweb. FtpServer and AsyncWeb are under
sandbox, but I think FtpServer is mature enough to bring it up to the
subproject right away because Niklas G is working on the project and
Niclas Hedman told me it's pretty mature project.
So... I'd like to suggest the following directory structure:
/ - mina - trunk
- tags
- branches
- ahc - trunk
- tags
- branches
- ftpserver - trunk
- tags
- branches
Does it make sense, or would you suggest better structure?
It makes sense I think! Would we still keep codec implementations in
subprojects under mina/ (like filter-codec-http)? I think that's a nice
separation. It would be great if the codec parts of ftpserver could be
separated from its use in ftpserver and become filter-codec-ftp. Is that
doable?
I think it would be very cool if MINA could be a repository for codec
implementations like this and I think that has been your intention from
the very start Trustin, right? We (Trillian AB) would be willing to
contribute initial (and in some areas incomplete) codec implementations
for POP3, SMTP and IMAP. I know there are others out there using MINA
for various types of mail servers and clients. Together we could build
complete and very usable implementations for these protocols.
Also we could give some nicer name to AHC. What about Superluminal?
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light)
I like that name! Of course we would have to live up to it as well! :-)
/Niklas
--
Niklas Therning
www.spamdrain.net
