Harmeet,
> > It was run a great deal more than once. Of course in my config, the
var
> > is deliberately kept at root. So I wouldn't see this issue.
>
> The last refactoring had caused a NullPointerException and Sever not
> starting.
A NPE that only occurred in a fresh server, not in a test server.
Largely because the previous NNTP code mixed up the directory lookup and
validation code. It was resolved, as it always is, in a matter of hours
of being reported. Not days. Or months.
> MODE READER is the first command sent by an NNTP Client.
> As you can probabaly see it is broken...
>
> Your intent is good and changes knowledgeable, but neither justifies
> removing work done by others(effective veto over other folks work) nor
> does
> it justify breaking things. At least have a test or two. I could have
> checked in the auth fix a few hours back but I am holding off till I
have
> a
> regression test...
What work?
If you want to keep your current NNTP service, you're welcome to use an
older version James. I contributed absolutely nothing prior to James
2.0a3, so you're welcome to use that. It's wrong, but you haven't
contributed any changes to fix it, so I don't see how you have any
problem with it.
Perhaps this is the core of the issue. You seem to think that you're
work contributed prior to this release allows you dictatorial control
over the code.
These are the hard facts. James has almost no one using NNTP because it
simply didn't work. Check the traffic on james-user. The only mention
of NNTP in the last three months was a user rejecting the implementation
as unsuitable for production. No one was maintaining it. There was a
typo bug in the SSL connection that had gone unattended for nine months.
There was the AuthService bug, an architectural problem, that lay
dormant for the same nine months. Your return coincided almost exactly
with actual repairs to the NNTP server to bring it up to a production
quality server (or close to it).
Since your return you have contributed:
i) Test code with an unmarked protocol script in violation of the RFC
ii) A superfluous class (CRLFWriter.java) that didn't even address a
documented issue in the NNTP code. This issue means that the CRLFWriter
code was wrong.
iii) An incorrect scheduler that exhibited almost exactly the same
behavior as the current Scheduler
iv) Another Scheduler implementation that no one but you seems to think
we need, and that you haven't put the time in to build and test with
Noel.
So whose work am I wasting? Certainly not yours.
> Here is the MODE READER implementation. Argument as sent by outlook
> express
> is null.
> yielding
> S: 501 Syntax error - unexpected parameter
> S: 200 Posting Permitted
>
> private void doMODEREADER(String argument) {
> // 7.2
> if ( argument != null ) {
> writer.println("501 Syntax error - unexpected parameter");
> }
> writer.println(theConfigData.getNNTPRepository().isReadOnly()
> ? "201 Posting Not Permitted" : "200 Posting
> Permitted");
> }
A regression indeed. And fixed. In an hour. Not nine months.
--Peter
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
