Harmeet Bedi wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > Are there other *requirements*? Let's discuss (and record) them.
> > Do you have an issue with something you see recorded? Raise it
> > for discussion, and we can record the revisions. Etc.
> - Standard repository interface.
Isn't that part of the user and message stores?
> - Move all the protocol servers to the standard repository.
> - Default IMAP to on.
Protocols do not default to on until they pass testing. We will probably
restructure the CVS, and with some of the work that Darrell just did, it may
make it easier to re-integrate things since we don't have to load those
components when we do the distribution build.
Serge suggested that my estimate of James v3 being one year away is
realistic if we wait for everything, but he'd like something sooner. If we
make the structural changes necessary, added key enhancements, and removed
obstacles that impede proper development of IMAP and NNTP, then there is an
argument for releasing James v3.0. I'm not saying that a functional IMAP
server isn't part of James v3.0, but I'm accepting that we may not want to
wait that long. So I am trying to define the minimum requirements that must
be met along the way.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
