On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:35 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> ATM the cryptographic mailet code is packaged into: >>>> >>>> * org.apache.james.security >>>> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/crypto/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/security/) >>>> * org.apache.james.transport.mailets.smime >>>> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/crypto/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/transport/mailets/smime/) >>>> * org.apache.james.transport.matchers.smime >>>> (http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mailet/crypto/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/transport/matchers/smime/) >>>> >>>> i was wondering about repackaging >>>> >>>> basing on 'org.apache.mailet.crypto' would follow the tentative >>>> convention adopted in base mailets but i'm open to suggestions >>>> >>>> opinions? >>> I'm fine with repackaging, but we should remember that this will mean >>> that we need many <mailetpackages>/<matcherpackages> in our config, and >>> that we won't provide backward compatibility for config.xml unless we >>> add some hardcoded hack or we add a compatibility layer with >>> matchers/mailets in the old places. >> >> crypto is little bit of a special case (it isn't in the 2.x code >> stream and it's not packaged now under o.a.j.transport) > > Good point!
unless there are any objections, suggestions or improvements sometime soon, i'll go ahead and repackage crypto - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
