On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> opinions? > > Unless there is someone willing to work on that code I think it is bad > to move it out.
the code has very little visibility within James. a mini-site would have more visibility. i agree with norman's point that the bayesian code is potentially reusable if it were in a separate library > Otherwise we'll end up with a microlibrary for the ClamAVScanner, for > the SpamAssassinInvoker, for the NetworkMatcher and so on. i like micro-libraries :-) they've also proved very successful over the years > You proved that you take care of releasing what you proposed to extract, > so I believe in you if you want to follow this path. there are some interesting stuff which could be done using machine learning and mail. i can think of a few cool SoC projects based around this. but i agree that the effect is only worthwhile if there are people interested in this area of james > We have > org.apache.james.util.BayesianAnalyzer > org.apache.james.util.JDBCBayesianAnalyzer > org.apache.james.transport.mailets.BayesianAnalysis > org.apache.james.transport.mailets.BayesianAnalysisFeeder > > Only 4 classes, and they are bound to > excalibur/cornerstone/avalon-framework... > > If you're willing to refactor them to remove the avalon/excalibur > dependencies then maybe they can live alone, otherwise I hardly see any > advantage in moving it out. IIRC the avalon code is used for data access. it would be easy to replace this with JPA (say) or JCR. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
