On Feb 4, 2008 1:52 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Danny Angus ha scritto: > > > On Feb 4, 2008 9:58 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Are you referring to the repositories api and the mailet v3 sandbox? > > > > Indirectly. I'm *not* proposing making big API changes, but moving > > James interfaces to mailet would let us do 99% of moving mailets out. > > > >> I'm not sure Robert proposal is related to it.... Robert? > > > > I don;t see how we can move out mailets without doing that. > > > > d. > > In server-dev yesterday I wrote a big message about mailets with no > dependencies on james server and mailets with minor utility dependencies > (for which we could move the utility too) and mailets that requires a > small refactoring to be able to move them out.
yes - these are ones i want to target plus the independent mailet utility code they rely on > It is a first step, and we will remain only james server specific > mailets in james-server, so it will be easier to understand what > interfaces we should place in the mailet api to move some or all of them > to the standard mailet product. +1 > We are not happy with repository interfaces in james-server now (at > least this is my understanding), so I'm not sure that moving them to a > public api (mailet api) will be a good thing. Furthermore any change > like this should be discussed in the mailet-api list as we are not the > only implementors of the mailet-apis. +1 - robert
