> -----Original Message----- > From: Soren Hilmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 December 2004 14:15 > To: James Developers List > Subject: Re: Repositories > > On Wednesday 22 December 2004 13:50, Danny Angus wrote: > > > > Soren, > > Derby would be embedded in James, it would not be visible to users at > all, > > and require no additional admin or configuration. > > The messages would not be visible in the filesystem, but that would be > the > > only drawback. > > Okay, sounds a little better. > > Still I must say I prefer the file repositories, it is a lot easier to > support > a mailserver when you can read the mails currently in process directly > from > the filesystem. > This is AFAIK also the approach serious mailservers like Postfix does > things. > > If we go for an all DB solution. We need better tools to show the > repositories > and messages within them. > > I can see the problems about destroying/renaming repositories, because > those > operations are not supported by CornerStone. > > Could it be a compromise that we require DB repositories only when IMAP is > used, and thereby allowing existing setups to continue with file/filedb > repositories? >
One repository to rule them all, one repository to find them. One repository to rule them all and in the darkness bind them :) (Apologies to JRR One of my primary design goals is to make sure the user can access their email using POP3 or IMAP4 in whatever way they choose. I will implement the file based repositories to have the required methods for IMAP. This will involve changes to the cornerstone classes. Is the best thing to do with these changes to move them into James proper or to attempt to submit changes to the Cornerstone project? > --Søren > > > > > d. > > > > <snip'd> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
