Markus Kühn wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefano Bagnara" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "James Developers List" <server-dev@james.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2006 12:35 AM
Subject: Re: James 2.4 and repositories...
Sorry, I don't understand your points.
In fact I'm talking of changes to implement new features (imap).
Stefano
IMAP is another story. You suggested merging 2 interfaces and doing some
refactoring.
If it is really of benefit, it is ok, but changing code in order to make
it more readable is good for new coders but not so good for others.
Markus
I don't consider myself a new coder on James, but I think that merging 2
interfaces that are currently used to store and retrieve the same
identical object in the same identical persistent area is a good thing.
If I proposed it is because I think it is really of benefit: I don't
take James as a sandbox for proof programming ;-)
IMAP is not another story: I started with this SIMPLE proposal because I
was thinking at what we need for IMAP. The first thing is a
MessageRepository supporting IMAP: I don't want to bring "old" things in
this new MessageRepository so we should first clean up the current
things. We currently store Mail objects where we should only store
MimeMessages: I'm trying to fix this.
If you think it's better to keep the 2 interfaces please tell me your
motivations.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
