> I have no problem with a CVS branch, if that's the correct technical CVS > approach. If I ever pretend to be a CVS expert, let me know. ;-) > Hopefully we'll move to Subversion long before that day. Personally, I > liked and used SourceSafe prior to its acquisition. > > IAE, I was more interested in how we resolve the problem within the code, > than how we represent it for the time being in the source code repository.
Ah yes, well your steps were pretty close to what I had said needed to be done in the original bug report, so I thought you had pulled from that. I pretty much finished the patch, so I can tell you what I had to do... There are basically two changes: 1. I copied over the blocks implementation to a new org.apache.james.mailrepository.filepair package (there are 4 files... stream and object repository, a repository manager, and an abstract repository). Then changed that to not number the repository (but still read the numbered messages). 2. Then you change your james-config.xml file to have file:// load the file repositories implementation from the new package. It's very easy to fix the numbering... but some work to offer backwards compatibility. If we had that tool I've been yearing for that would let admins easily move files between repositories, we could offer backwards compatibility with a migration process... define filenumbered:// and file:// to be the avalon and the james implementations, respectively, and then have admins transfer from one implementation to the other. Serge Knystatuas Loki Technologies http://www.lokitech.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
