> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > To remove cornerstone we would need to rewrite most of james.
>
> Oh, it isn't that bad. The two primary things to replace are
> the mail store and user store packages. And it is essential
> to replace Avalon, at least in terms of interface, in order
> to expose those capabilities in the Mailet API.
Sorry but imho reality is different, here is the number of imports for each
package
16 import org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.connection.*;
7 import org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.datasources.*;
9 import org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.scheduler.*;
2 import org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.sockets.*;
15 import org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.store.*;
2 import org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.threads.*;
9 import org.apache.avalon.excalibur.datasource.*;
33 import org.apache.avalon.excalibur.pool.*;
1 import org.apache.avalon.framework.*;
44 import org.apache.avalon.framework.activity.*;
6 import org.apache.avalon.framework.component.*;
121 import org.apache.avalon.framework.configuration.*;
1 import org.apache.avalon.framework.container.*;
36 import org.apache.avalon.framework.context.*;
44 import org.apache.avalon.framework.logger.*;
73 import org.apache.avalon.framework.service.*;
6 import org.apache.excalibur.thread.*;
IMHO we should only try to hide avalon/cornerstone from the Mailets/Matchers
and to enable another container.
IMHO avalon interfaces are not so bad: I don't think that creating our own
interfaces for lifecycles will be better than using the one we are currently
using. They are interfaces and we can adapt lyfecycle management from other
containers to the one from avalon.
I don't like to depend on Phoenix that has bugs and is not developed
anymore, and I would like to be able to run james easily with a custom
container (excalibur based) or with spring/osgi.
> I keep thinking about efficiency in the mail store (something
> that the current one doesn't do well). I had once commented
> to Peter Goldstein that the key to moving data quickly was
> not to move it. He did some work in a private copy of James
> that implemented that idea, but abandoned the project for
> lack of time.
>
> I also think that we should look at separating the message
> store from the spool, and actually having the spool reference a store.
I agree at all!
> Any chance that you would make it to ApacheCon? It might be
> fun to have a JAMES hack-a-thon at ApacheCon this winter.
> --- Noel
It's very hard: I'm in italy and I don't think I'll have holidays in
december!
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
