On Dec 9, 2007 6:58 PM, Chris Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'd like to investigate extending the James IMAP implementation to use > alternative message stores. I've looked into the 3.0 code to gauge the > plausibility of this and what I see out of the gate is not > encouraging... but I'm unfamiliar with the codebase, so all is not lost.
what type of message store did you have in mind? > Is there a place I'm missing where I can map IMAP commands to an > alterate message store? i'm a little uncertain about what you precisely mean by mapping the SEDA implementation (under active development) has decoupled decoding, processing and encoding layers. the processors map request objects into response object. if this is what you mean than it's possible to insert alternative processors into the command processing chain. however, IMAP is a nasty protocol. you may find it easier just to create an alternative implementation of the mailbox API. (if he's around, Zsombor may want to jump in here since he's ported the torque based implementation to hibernate.) the mailbox API is being revised ATM. hopefully, these changes should make implementation easier but until they're finished, the API will be a moving target. (noel may want to jump in to describe some of changes being mooted.) > Would this be a useful extension to make > public, if I were to pursue this? there's a lot of interest in this topic. Zsombor has a hibernate port. i'm more interested in JCR backed solution than RDBs. but IMHO it's important to have a complete, tested and debugged implementation. IMAP is currently incomplete and under active development. the mailbox API is also under active development. so, you'll probably either need to work closely with us or fork. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
