Sure, I would be very interested in discuss stuff. I was just looking for a quick solution which give users who use James 2.3 not to much headach.
But I think you are right, the current MailRepository stuff is really bad in terms of Performance. Bye Norman 2010/1/21, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]>: > On Wednesday, January 20, 2010, Norman Maurer <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> after I already brought this up some time in the past I thought a bit >> more about MailRepository and MailboxManager. I'm still in favor to >> just use one Repository for IMAP and POP3. I think its a no go to ship >> different "storages" for the protocols. I know the requirement for >> POP3 and IMAP are totally different but shouldn't it be possible to >> write some adapter which will just expose the Mails via the >> MailRepository interface but use an underlying MailboxManager to fetch >> it ? >> >> So when an User would use IMAP he would get all he features of >> MailboxManager, if he use POP3 he will just see the emails in the >> Folder INBOX. Thats exactly how many unix mailserver do it. Like >> Dovecot, Courier etc. So it can't be the worst idea =P >> >> Then we could mark the old implementations with "@deprecated" and >> remove them later, or beeing more radical remove them now. >> Mailmigration could just work with the RemoteManager and "movemails" >> command. >> >> WDYT ? >> >> I think I remember Robert didn'T like the idea to much in the past.. > > Sounds good but... > > ...there are issues with semantic incompatibilities between the > protocols and performance issues with tha James repository layer. > > I spent almost a year fixing the problems the last time someone tried > this. In the end the solution was very simple - scrap the adaption > layer and rewrite the IMAP implementation from scratch. > > I've spent a couple of years thinking about this and think I > understand why exchange took so long to get right. I now have some > solutions which I think will work but start from the IMAP approach and > will involve some clear re-thinking of some basic James concepts. The > good news is that I think this will make exchange integration > feasible. > > If there's interest in implementing, I should have time to outline > what I learned. > > Opinions? > > Robert > >> >> Bye, >> Norman >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
