Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Should I just go ahead an commit it ( and open a jira issue) ? > > if we follow stefano's design reasoning then really the VUT code needs > to be moved from LocalDelivery into a separate mailet
A little history. 1) LocalDelivery was a single mailet including user aliasing code. 2) I splitted LocalDelivery into 2 separate mailets: UsersRepositoryAliasingForwarding ToMultiRepository I did that because the way aliasing worked in past james was a lot tricky and this was a first step in modularizing it. 3) Norman and I worked on a VUT service because we wanted to let access to the same "table" from both mailets and smtp fastfail stuff. I still consider this an *hack*, but there is no easy way to support per recipient fastfail unless we don't run some of the mailets during the smtp protocol. I tried proposing changes to the mailet so that they was more SMTP aware but others never liked the idea. Also 2+3 happened at the end of 2006 when we (Norman and I) was working hard to try to release a new version of james with new features. That features required some care to be completed but we suddenly stopped because other people didn't want a release and we gave up. I really sincerely don't remember anything else about the status of what was committed and what was not there. It's 2 years ago. "my" design reasoning is simply derived from what was the design when I approached james and what was written in the stone by people working on this before me. Maybe I didn't understand what kind of API you want to change, so maybe it's better for me to wait for a concrete proposal and then judge/critic it. IMHO the problem here is not the code or a VUT API issue, this is a Mailet API issue. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
