On 5/6/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 6, 2007, at 6:26 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
> On 5/3/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On May 3, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Søren Hilmer wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> >> On 5/3/07, Søren
On May 6, 2007, at 6:26 AM, robert burrell donkin wrote:
On 5/3/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Søren Hilmer wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also I might be wrong
On 5/3/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Søren Hilmer wrote:
> On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
>> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Also I might be wrong, but as we talk directly to the network, the
>>> authorized
On Thursday 03 May 2007 23:13, Steve Brewin wrote:
> > No, actually I did not believe I was :-)
>
> As I received this several time I guess you really must believe this :-)
>
Sorry, about that my webmail acted up upon me :-(
> In truth, while the JCA spec. is somewhat opaque, implementations are
David Blevins wrote:
On May 3, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Søren Hilmer wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also I might be wrong, but as we talk directly to the network, the
authorized way to integrate into an EJB container is t
On May 3, 2007, at 2:55 AM, Søren Hilmer wrote:
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Also I might be wrong, but as we talk directly to the network, the
authorized way to integrate into an EJB container is through a JCA
adapter,
> From: Søren Hilmer wrote:
> >> Also I might be wrong, but as we talk directly to the network, the
> >> authorized way to integrate into an EJB container is through a JCA
> >> adapter, and they are kind of beastly to implement :-)
> >
> > Unfortunately, you aren't wrong :-)
>
> No, actually I d
On 5/3/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Danny Angus ha scritto:
>> I would not neccessarily suggest to change a running
>> system. Mail infra is very critical to the ASF!
>
> What's more James is better suited to complex processing than to
> handling very large volumes. FWIW I heard
Danny Angus ha scritto:
>> I would not neccessarily suggest to change a running
>> system. Mail infra is very critical to the ASF!
>
> What's more James is better suited to complex processing than to
> handling very large volumes. FWIW I heard that a few years ago Apache
> sent 1,000,000+ mails pe
I would not neccessarily suggest to change a running
system. Mail infra is very critical to the ASF!
What's more James is better suited to complex processing than to
handling very large volumes. FWIW I heard that a few years ago Apache
sent 1,000,000+ mails per day.
James would need to be optimi
Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
If it would be good for ASF mail delivery - I would not like to put
that on a test. ASF is sending quite a lot of mails!
IMHO it would be the duty of the "JAMES team" to lobby this trial to the
other ASF members
to make a first try and get feedback what's required to be able
Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood...
If that would be so, than the entire ASF "messaging" infrastructure
should run on JAMES in *first* place, including newsgroups and mailing
lists (and this since years) :).
Well, that would at least dramatically increase t
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:48, Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
>> Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood...
> If that would be so, than the entire ASF "messaging" infrastructure should
> run on JAMES in *first*
> place, including newsgroups and mailing lists (and this since years) :
Ahmed Mohombe wrote:
Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood...
If that would be so, than the entire ASF "messaging" infrastructure
should run on JAMES in *first* place, including newsgroups and mailing
lists (and this since years) :).
Well, that would at least d
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood,
>> and
>> go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
>> EJB-container road?
>
>
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood,
>> and
>> go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
>> EJB-container road?
>
>
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood,
>> and
>> go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
>> EJB-container road?
>
>
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood,
>> and
>> go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
>> EJB-container road?
>
>
On Thu, May 3, 2007 11:40, Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood,
>> and
>> go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
>> EJB-container road?
>
>
Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood...
If that would be so, than the entire ASF "messaging" infrastructure should run on JAMES in *first*
place, including newsgroups and mailing lists (and this since years) :).
Also, AFAIK the Geronimo food has a strong Maven t
On 5/3/07, Søren Hilmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi,
Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood, and
go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
EJB-container road?
I'd rather be able to deploy to Geronimo _and_ other containers.
OpenEJB
Hi,
Well, just thinking, this being ASF. Shouldn't we eat our own dogfood, and
go for Geronimo as our default deployment if/when we choose to take the
EJB-container road?
Also I might be wrong, but as we talk directly to the network, the
authorized way to integrate into an EJB container is throug
On 5/3/07, David Blevins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Just an FYI, OpenEJB is extremely non-intrusive and it's very easy to
use as "just a library" in various ways.
I hadn't really thought of that, I know Noel had mentioned OpenEJB,
but I couldn't figure out why, and I used it years ago so I sho
On May 2, 2007, at 10:29 PM, David Blevins wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
[..]
Conceptually, JAMES is made up of the following pieces:
- Wire level protocol handlers, which break down into:
- Incoming Message Acceptors (e.g., SMT
On May 2, 2007, at 3:36 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
[..]
Conceptually, JAMES is made up of the following pieces:
- Wire level protocol handlers, which break down into:
- Incoming Message Acceptors (e.g., SMTP)
- Incoming Message Providers (e.g., POP3)
Danny Angus ha scritto:
>> I prefer to
>> not require a full J2EE stack for running it. If we build upon JCR and
>> JMS we already provide lots of options for deployment. Btw it seems you
>> switch deployment options too fast ;-) .. yesterday (some months ago)
>> everyone was for OSGi... I don't re
I prefer to
not require a full J2EE stack for running it. If we build upon JCR and
JMS we already provide lots of options for deployment. Btw it seems you
switch deployment options too fast ;-) .. yesterday (some months ago)
everyone was for OSGi... I don't read OSGi in this mail...
I don't thi
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
> JMX, and I agree that we as long as we're going to do this uplift, we should
> make sure that we provide appropriate JMX support. And see also JSR-138.
Can you elaborate on JSR-138 ?
I never heard of it, and from a fast google search I only found Oracle
had an implem
Bernd Fondermann wrote:
> other important parts are
> - User DB
Subsumed by "data store", at least for the moment.
> - Server Management
JMX, and I agree that we as long as we're going to do this uplift, we should
make sure that we provide appropriate JMX support. And see also JSR-138.
> - Me
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> About JCR being the abstraction "period", I would say.. "maybe comma"
> ;-) Let's see it working before placing periods.
You must have missed the *IF* earlier in the paragraph. :-)
> So you revamped JMS, too ;-)
For a specific purpose, not for the internal implementati
Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
> From my experience EJB incl. MDB does _not_ open options for
> deplyoment, they _narrow_ them.
> You would need an EJB container, and add much more footprint by the
> way than by adding a JMS implementation.
>
> There are so many lightweight and more flexible compone
On 5/2/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So we're talking about a major technology uplift for JAMES. One piece being
talked about is the replacement of our data store with JCR. There are
others ...
Conceptually, JAMES is made up of the following pieces:
- Wire level protocol ha
Noel J. Bergman ha scritto:
> [..]
> Conceptually, JAMES is made up of the following pieces:
>
> - Wire level protocol handlers, which break down into:
> - Incoming Message Acceptors (e.g., SMTP)
> - Incoming Message Providers (e.g., POP3)
> - Outgoing Message Delivery (e.g., RemoteD
33 matches
Mail list logo
