On Wed, 29 Oct 2003 16:49:14 +0100 Brad Knowles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > At 2:30 PM -0600 2003/10/28, David Champion wrote:
> You cannot assume a homogenous client mix. Moreover, you can't assume > broad support for less common protocols like IMAP or NNTP. Apparently assumable/desirable protocols enclude: SMTP HTTP XML/RPC (on HTTP) SOAP (on HTTP or SMTP) Mailman currently supports the first two, with the caveat that it has no SMTP retrieval supports and no a priori primary key for HTTP. Moving to a store which supports a Message ID primary key doesn't change the protocol list (tho it may extend it). However moving to such a store allows a simple extension to allow key-based retrieval via SMTP and HTTP, which are the primary protocols. Extending that down the road to XML/RPC and SOAP on any transport wouldn't be difficult, especially in the Python world (I'm beating on SOAPpy's MIME supports as I type this). What form the backing store takes is orthogonal to this aspect of the discussion. The key features are a priori key definition and key-based retrieval. Get those two and the rest become relatively trivial. The exact form of the backing store is irrelevant. Nobody cares. Protocol access and protocol behaviour (API) are the important bits. To date three backing stores have been proposed: Twisted's NNTP implementation, IMAP, and SQL. All could work. All could match the above discussion perfectly. Implementing each would require significantly different levels of effort. I'd posit that Twisted is the cheapest/easiest route simply due to it being pythonic and small. -- J C Lawrence ---------(*) Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas. [EMAIL PROTECTED] He lived as a devil, eh? http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/ Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live. _______________________________________________ Mailman-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/mailman-developers
