On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
backward compatibility for packages is a two edged sword :-) repacking would allow users to easier try the new versions in older server versions but would introducing upgrading issues once the originals are deleted > 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. +1 > I think the priority is backward compatibility: so if the "hack" above is > acceptable for a 2.x branch then we could even repackage. IMHO the whole class scanning thing seems like a bit of hack to me but i'll probably open another thread for this... - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
