> Hi all, > > Since there is no clearly consensus as to whether JAMES > should be rearchitected around MINA, I am implementing the > design I proposed.
I think most of fast fail code should not *depend* on (the transport) MINA (while I would like to have a mina based smtp handler). But I'm for code reuse and for modularity, and Mike already started a good MINA based smtp implementation providing some sort of fast fail. I think you should look at https://svn.safehaus.org/repos/mail/trunk/src/java/org/safehaus/hausmail/smt p/server/ and possibly try to use similar interfaces (If I remember correctly this is not too different from what you proposed). If you refactor the current NON-MINA smtp implementation around these "common" interfaces then we will have fast fail for both implementations (Mike's MINA and your james smtpserver refactoring). Of course Mike's interfaces depends on MINA so yours will be a little different: the more we try to get things coded against similar interfaces the easier a merge/port will be in future. E.g: SMTPSession and CommandMessage are not MINA based. SMTPCommandHandler and all the commands in command/* only depends on IOSession from MINA so you could create your own "session" object and still use similar code/interfaces: it will not be compatible with IOSession but it will not differ too much. > Currently I am working on the latest stable release 2.2.0. > Do you suggest I take a later release? Sure, you should grab the latest head from here: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs.cgi/james/server/trunk/ There is an updated avalon/phoenix container and a lot of fixes. Some of us already use it in production server so it should be stable enough. BTW, I also agree with Danny and Noel: make your own path and consider this message simply an "hint". Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
