On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:49 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> 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
>>> I'm not following you. Norman patch does touch the LocalDelivery, if I
>>> understand it.
>>
>> LocalDelivery uses UsersRepositoryAliasingForwarding and the code in it
>
> IMO the current aliasingforwarding stuff could be deprecated and I find
> it very "weird" and unintuitive in the way it works. The whole
> refactoring was about allowing it to be excluded and replaced with a
> different solution without breaking backward compatibility (I was only
> working inside the agreed constraints, but in italy we say "a lot of
> water passed under the bridges" since that).
("it's all water under the bridge" in Merry Merry England, we're not
so well endowed bridge-wise as our Italian brothers)
i understand :-)
i've now taken a good look at the user stuff and think we need to use
revised interfaces to take james 3 forward. my current thinking is
that it would be best to take advantage of the poor packaging and
create new revised interfaces in new packages. the old ones can be
retained as legacy. (i would prefer legacy to be maintained outside
the main james server codebase since my IDE struggles and james is
slow to build).
>>> IMO it can be committed.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> It seems it simply fixes a previously "partial"
>>> work:
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-615
>>>
>>> Also, if you are interested in revamping/refreshing/fixing the user
>>> stuff in james I can give you 2 more pointers in hour "history":
>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-622
>>
>> i've talked phoenix into not using proxies now so some of the extra
>> complexity can be removed
>
> I saw! I didn't know phoenix had this option :-( , and this should make
> it things much more simple. Thank you!
that's just the start :-)
i've made a *ton* of progress with phoenix. when you get some time, i
have some exciting stuff to share.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
