Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
the packaging for the new mailet products is the same as in JAMES.
probably worth thinking about whether we take this opportunity to
repackage.
opinions?
Do you mean the class packages (org.apache.mailet) ?
class packages
org.apache.james.transport.*
- robert
If you plan to also use the resulting library in a future v2.4.x release
maybe we should also consider the backward compatibility.
At config.xml level it would be a "minor" issue because it will only
require importing the new package name (we mostly suggest the use of the
classname without the package in the matcher/mailets configuration), but
this will break config.xml for people upgrading.
To keep 100% backward compatibility we should otherwise create a
backward compatibility kit that will show "old" mailets (simple
extensions without any change) in the previous package, too.
I think the priority is backward compatibility: so if the "hack" above
is acceptable for a 2.x branch then we could even repackage.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
