On Wednesday 23 June 2010 at 08:28:32 chen wrote:
> [...]
> Make sure to use the imapx provider as that's were, we are focusing our
> efforts on.
After some discussion it seems to be clear that we will have to settle on
Evo/EDS 2.30 for API stability reasons (customer requirement).
This means w
On Thu, 2010-06-24 at 15:10 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> By the way, are there any known pitfalls using multiple instances of Camel
> simultaneously? I think I've read something about Camel not being
> multithreading-safe (can't seem to find the link just now), but our backends
> will likel
On Monday 21 June 2010 at 20:05:25 Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 18:28 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> > Does the "front-end process" refer to Evolution, i.e. is a
> > Camel.Provider running inside Evolution instead of EDS? I was hoping that
> > all non-UI-related stuff could be
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 14:05 -0400, Matthew Barnes wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 18:28 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> > Does the "front-end process" refer to Evolution, i.e. is a Camel.Provider
> > running inside Evolution instead of EDS? I was hoping that all
> > non-UI-related
> > stuff c
On Mon, 2010-06-21 at 18:28 +0200, Christian Hilberg wrote:
> Does the "front-end process" refer to Evolution, i.e. is a Camel.Provider
> running inside Evolution instead of EDS? I was hoping that all non-UI-related
> stuff could be run inside EDS, so we would facilitate Evo only for account
>
Hi all,
we're back with a bunch of questions. This is an email conversation I had with
Matthew regarding Evo/EDS internals. I got his permission to post the message
here, so everyone can participate in clearing things up for us. Matthew
already gave some very valuable hints and directions on ho
