On Nov 2, 2007 12:54 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > the problem is that session is used in two different senses: database > > session and a session of a (session-oriented) protocol > > > > if you're using a transactional datastore then yes, you'll need a > > datastore session to execute transactions but there is no necessity > > for this to equal the MailboxAPI session > > Maybe there are *3* different sessions: the protocol session (for POP3, > IMAP, SMTP), the mailboxapi session, the datastore session. > Or you are saying that the MailboxAPI session will be the same as (or 1 > to 1 to) the protocols session?
depends on the design. however, the MailboxAPI session is stored in the IMAP session. this is necessary since the MailboxAPI session is heavyweight (~1 second to create). for more protocols, creating a session for a limited number of operations makes no sense. > >> Maybe the problem is that I don't know what the MailboxManager > >> responsibility and API users are/will be so I don't know what layer of > >> the architecture will be involved by this "API Design" thread. > > > > i agree that this is the major problem: we need to understand the use > > cases better > > > > - robert > > Maybe you are the one that better know both the implementations we > currently have and the requirement for IMAP. Zsombor has made a start collecting requirements http://wiki.apache.org/james/BackendMailboxAPI > Do you think we should evolve some of the currently existing api or do > you think it's better to start from scratch a new design? people are already using the existing API so creating a new one from scratch would probably be unpopular. but a review (and simplification) is well overdue. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
