On 10/8/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I will go on record that I oppose a move to Spring, and have said so on > multiple occassions. However, I do not oppose optional support for Spring.
The Phoenix deployment will live on. All the users having their own components and whatever customizations will be supported. For new users starting to use James there is no fundamental advantage chosing one deployment over the other. Except if they already have Spring components (or POJOs) they'd like to integrate with. > > So long as we are agreed on that, I'm +1 to on the latter. Agreed. > > > As a consequence, we would be able to release a Spring-container-based > > Server runtime besides our regular Avalon-based. > > I'll start another thread on Avalon. I should have better said "Phoenix-based" instead of "Avalon-based". We cannot live without our Excalibur bindings. > How much does your proposed merger effect the stability of code that > couldn't care less about Spring, e.g., the Avalon-based release? Zero. The only thing we changed is https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-803 But this is just enabling a feature in alternative FileSystem implementations (as James/Spring has one). James/Phoenix behavior did not change. All the checks are still in place at the more appropriate place. Bernd --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
