chibenwa commented on pull request #808: URL: https://github.com/apache/james-project/pull/808#issuecomment-1004467407
> Of course. We wanted to finally release something so we didn't aim for perfection. I'm not sure we'll find the motivation to write this doc properly. However, we are eager to share what we did, so I propose we do it another way: we could set up a community meeting to discuss this design and take note of that conversation. It probably won't produce a well structured document but the knowledge sharing would at least be done. WDYT? Agree. Feel free to propose a date and link by email. I will take notes and eventually propose such an ADR. > We don't foresee any scalability issue as the complexity is bound to the number of deletion, which should be a small amount anyway. > Does it make sense? Ok I see. I think this is rather a strong claim. Eg I ended up to mistakenly configure an open relay and ended up with 30k+ mails in queue and ended up clearing them. Hence the number of deleted emails had an impact. That being said, I do think this remains a rare operation and that over-engineering is way too easy on the mailQueue component. I'd rather operate a reliable Pulsar implementation that supports only a few deletes rather than an unreliable RabbitMQ... -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
