Aaron Knauf wrote:
Sorry, I quoted the wrong part of your message, losing some context to your comment. Earlier in the message you had commented that you felt it was unclear whether this was decided, and that's what I meant to respond to. If nothing else, I wanted to clarify that it has been decided, since you indicated you were somewhat uncertain about that. So, we're glad to have you on board! :)Yeah, I know this, Serge. The point that I am making (in the statement that you are replying to,) is that I am truly ambivalent about this decision, but quite happy to support it. The point the I was making in that post, was that (IMHO) there is no point in going down that road without achieving the degree of portability in Mailets as has been achieved in servlets.I have no opinion on whether or not it is a good idea to treat the Mailet API as a distinct entity. If that is what others want (and I think it has already been decided that they do), I'll get on board. However, Mailet portability is a *must* if we are to do this.You'll see in the Top-Level-Project proposal, one of the motivators to do this is to create subprojects, namely a project to house the separate mailet API/specification, and also a project to house mailet implementations.
So yes, a big reason why we're james.apache.org is because we've decided we want the Mailet API as a distinct entity.
--
Serge Knystautas
President
Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
