Danny Angus wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Haven't we heard that others are interested in the Mailet API? Plus,
there
> > are some related messaging use-cases, and we have a fine
> > messaging/routing/mediation engine.
> Yes, some. And that has always been my goal (as you know).
I do know. :-)
> What I'm struggling with is this dilemma.. If we move api dev away
> from server-dev too quickly then the API changes and James-server just
> carries on with o.a.j.services
Ah ... I had wondered why you were backing away from the strong stance that
you have taken in the past regarding wanting the Mailet API to be portable.
:-)
> OTOH if it stays in "server" we aren't strict enough with compliance
> and/or lifecycle.
> What to do? well at the moment I think that we evolve it out of
> server, and *then* give it its own list, but I'm open to suggestion.
I'd say leave it as is for now. The JAMES PMC still controls both
specifications, and we also own the "reference implementation." The
separation, at least, reminds us that we do want to be open to other
implementations, and that platform tying is a bad thing.
--- Noel
