From: "Chaudhuri, Hiran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> But does that really require to hardcode the filesystem?
There is a NNTP Repository Block. The protocol server and NNTP Repository
are completely separate.
One can implement a JDBC based NNTP repository and plug it in without
changing the protocol server.
However another thing to address in the larger James context is this - do
you want
to have 2 different Repository APIs ?
Maybe a good idea would be to implement NNTP repository block on top of
James mail repository and pick the repository implementation that works
best.
I will unfortunatly not be able to do this anytime soon. :-(
Harmeet
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chaudhuri, Hiran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi, Harmeet.
Yes, your reasons for the NNTP filesystem implementation are reasonable.
Memory consumption and performance are server side issues, especially with
many users.
But does that really require to hardcode the filesystem? I'd try and
implement an NNTP repository with the same features, but I'd have to change
almost all classes. Here I will be pleased to see an
interface/implementation pattern so physical stores other than the
filesystem can be used.
Hiran
-----------------------------------------
Hiran Chaudhuri
SAG Systemhaus GmbH
Elsenheimerstra�e 11
80687 M�nchen
Germany
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Phone +49-89-54742-134
Fax +49-6151-9234-5134
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harmeet Bedi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2002 3:09 AM
> To: Chaudhuri, Hiran
> Subject: Re: James NNTP repository implementation
>
>
> the short answer is that
> NNTP Repository has performance/scalability benefits over
> MailRepository.
>
> Harmeet
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Harmeet Bedi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Chaudhuri, Hiran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 6:03 PM
> Subject: Re: James NNTP repository implementation
>
>
> > Here is the interesting part from attached mail
> > ------------------------
> > I think it is a given that having the same mechanism for
> NNTP is a clean
> and
> > good thing to do, but here are some advantages for keeping the NNTP
> > repository separate.
> > - Faster than the repository for POP & SMTP.
> > - Streamed. Entire message content is never in memory.
> > - It is easier to separte NNTP from the other parts. Folks
> may want to use
> > NNTP Server but may want to use another mail servers. Such
> a user would
> not
> > need to worry about non-nntp configuration.
> > - I still don't know what and if there is a gain in functionality. I
> haven't
> > heard anyone want a db Backend for newsgroup mail. Why
> build, if there is
> no
> > known advantage ? On the other hand if someone has a real
> world need that
> > would be motivation.
> > - How stable is the POP-SMTP backend ? There have been a
> few emails about
> > this. When I looked at the Avalon File Repository, I was a
> bit nervous. I
> > think it is based on serialization, and that approach has
> some problems,
> > like say schema evolution, speed etc. If SMTP-POP3 repository is not
> > completly safe, maybe we should continue with NNTP
> repository for some
> time
> > and then revisit.
> > - The NNTP repository is a lot simpler. Minimal coupling.
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Chaudhuri, Hiran" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2002 3:46 PM
> > Subject: James NNTP repository implementation
> >
> >
> > Hi, Harmeet.
> >
> > I have seen your email address in the sources of Apache James' nntp
> > repository implementation. Being interested in customizing
> James, I hope
> you
> > have the time to answer some questions for me.
> >
> > The NNTPRepository seems to work closely with the
> filesystem. Is this done
> > intentional? I thought all that is needed is some way to
> store messages,
> and
> > that has been implemented with the MailRepository already.
> From the NNTP
> and
> > SMTP RFCs I read that the message format is actually the
> same, which means
> > even NNTP should be able to deal with MimeMessages.
> >
> > NNTP repository has better per
> >
> > Do you think it is hard to create an NNTPRepository that works on
> > MimeMessages, or even use a MailRepository to store the messages?
> >
> > Hiran
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Hiran Chaudhuri
> > SAG Systemhaus GmbH
> > Elsenheimerstra�e 11
> > 80687 M�nchen
> > Germany
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Phone +49-89-54742-134
> > Fax +49-6151-9234-5134
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
