Hi Norman,
So moving and simplifying some Store hierarchy makes sense.
Now, the important question is the alignment, or not, of the Store with
Mailbox/MessageManager
(I talked about MailboxManager only, but I meant the Mailbox/MessageManager)
With such alignment:
1. A user could to define in spoolmanager.xml different store for
different usage/priority/sla. For example
- locally delivered mails to jpa://mailbox/
- spam mails to jpa://mailbox/Spam (the spam folder of the user mailbox)
- relay denied mails to file://var/mail/relay-denied/
- error mails to jcr://error/
2. Current 2.3 users could simply leverage their mailstore and access
them via POP3/IMAP without any change.
If we don't align/adapt:
1. Locally delivered mails are delivered in the unique store defined in
spring-beans.xml .Oher mails have no access to existing and future
mailbox-store impl.
2. James 2.3 users will have to manually migrate their 2.3 store, that
means, pump it and inject it in jpa/jcr/....
It's true that the current MessageManager.appendMessage is not suited
for mail delivery (it needs a mailboxSession,...).
But we could always add some methods such as
MessageManager.appendRawMessage(Mail,...) (would not deal with Mail
attributes,...) and let the mailbox-store implement them. The
MailRepository.store(Mail) would simply delegate to that
MessageManager.appendRawMessage(Mail,...)
Tks,
Eric
On 20/09/2010 14:50, Norman Maurer wrote:
Hi Eric,
comments inside.
2010/9/20 Eric Charles<e...@apache.org>:
Hi,
It's always possible to inject the mailboxmanager in mailets
(ToRepository),... but we would really gain to unify/simplify the 2.3 mail
storage with the 3.0 one.
In 2.3, we have such class hierarchy:
Repository
+- AbstractFileRepository
+- File_Persistent_Object_Repository
+- File_Persistent_Stream_Repository
MailRepository
+- AbstractMailRepository
+- FileMailRepository
+- JCRMailRepository
+- JDBCMailRepository
+- MBoxMailRepository
+- SpoolRepository
+- InMemorySpoolRepository
+- MailStoreSpoolRepository
Store
+- AbstractMailStore
+- SpringMailStore
In short, the SpringMailStore is responsible to register the
MailRepositories and to select them.
Thats correct but I would more call it a hack to let it Spring load it
;) The whole Store interface is just a left-over from the old days
were we used Avalon/Excalibur for DI and component loading. I would be
more in favor to replace the Store interface with something which is
not such a mess..
In Mailbox projects introduced for 3.0, we have:
MailboxManager
+- StoreMailboxManager
+- InMemoryMailboxManager
+- JCRMailboxManager
+- JPAMailboxManager
+- MaildirMailboxManager
With new 3.0 implementation, we only can deliver in one-and-only-one store
(jpa, jcr,...).
We should overcome this limitation.
Thats the question.. Do we really want to overcome this ? I'm not sure
if the MailboxManager should replace the MailRepository for such cases
as storing mails in
the error processor etc. With the MailRepository we are able to store
the whole Mail including Mail Attributes etc, thats not the case with
MailboxManager. MailboxManager was not designed for that purpose. Its
just a storage for Mailboxes nothing more, nothing less ;) IMHO it
would make sense to "not merge" this twos and so only allow to
configure one MailboxManager implementation..
Way to go further...:
We should also discuss on the future way to evolve. There are different
options/steps to go further with that unification/simplification:
A/ Should we consider the MaiboxManager as just another MailStore, so
developing a MailboxManagerMailStoreAdapter class and add the needed entries
to the mailstore.xml, so the existing SpringMailStore mecanic is invoked.
B/ Or simplifying and removing the Store and MailRepository hierarchy.
C/ Any other options... ?
See above..
This could be also thought in parallel with a discussion on UsersRepository
hierarchy, so we have coherent way of working within James.
I we go for option B/, it would be logical to also simplify the
UsersRepository hierarchy.
(Think also the DomainList has no Repository notion).
I think its a bit different. We should just Remove the UsersStore and
VirtualUserTableStore. There is no need to support more the one
implementation at one time
here. This just makes things more complex.
I think we should also extract the 2.3 classes/interfaces, and place them in
the correct mailbox projects (also create new mailbox projects for example
apache-james-mailbox-file that will contain FileMailRepository,..).
+1
WDYT?
Eric
On 6/09/2010 08:24, Eric Charles wrote:
OK, we've done a picture of the current situation.
I would like to pick an simple example as strong requirement to unify the
store/repository (whatever then name is) API across all projects.
In spoolmanager.xml, we define respositoryPath such as db://maildb/spam.
These repositoryPath are used in mailets,...
Let's say I want to develop a mailet that under certain conditions stores
the mail in a folder (let's say "spam" folder) of the user.
If the mailbox is for example JCR, I have no standard way to define the
folder path in the james-server "repository" syntax. Or I must invent one...
(jcr://...? or a more generic one mailbox:///? because I don't want to
change spoolmanager.xml if spring-beans.xml changes)
If both are linked, we have clear conventions to implement.
And we can always release any project when we want.
This is why I think we should link in a way or another the james-server
repository and the imap store. Not only on syntax extension, but also on
implementing classes.
Tks,
Eric
On 6/09/2010 07:49, Norman Maurer wrote:
Comments inline..
2010/9/6 Eric Charles<e...@apache.org>:
Hi Norman,
pop3server has store in its pom, but does not really need it. I will
carefully test before commit the changes.
Should be safe to remove it then..
JPAUser is accessed in JPAUsersRepository (instanciated via the
LocalUsers
repository) while JPAMailbox is managed in JPAMailboMapper is accessed
via
JPAMailboxMapper. JPAUsersRepository and JPAMailboxMapper are created in
completely different ways.
Ok, I think the "mapper stuff" is just in imap to make implementing
different Mailbox stores easy. So its ok to have it work different.
I see that james-server has a whole infrastructure around "repository".
Imap
has not that infrastructure and rely on implementing different stores in
different projects. The questions are:
1.- must imap go to server repository infra?
Not sure..
2.- must server repository infra be simplified and merged with the imap
approach?
-1 No
3.- must we leave that separated?
Have them seperate allow to have a independend release cycle. Well I
know imap had no release yet but I hope to get it done this week.
btw, even in james-server, all persistence does not go the same way:
domainlist does not work completely with repository.
If you take the JDBCDomainList, it needs a repositoryPath which is
db://maildb/domain (I don't see directly the relation with the
persistence.xml for the mailbox, and however, it stores in the same
database...). However, if you take the JPADomainList, it does not need
any
"repository", because it's using the persistence.xml.
I mean, the repository principle has some exceptions in james-server.
The RepositoryPath stuff is from the good old days. With this concept
its possible to use more then one db. Like db://maildb/domain (db =
maildb, table = domain) and db://maildb2/domain (db= maildb2, table =
domain). The whole concept is a "left-over" from using excalibur and
avalon. To be honest I don't care if we remove it at all, one db
should be enough...
Tks,
Eric
On 5/09/2010 20:11, Norman Maurer wrote:
Hi Eric,
comments inside..
2010/9/5 Eric Charles<e...@apache.org>:
Hi All,
The store project has the mappers and imports some classes of mailbox
(mailboxmanager,...), so 'store depends on mailbox'.
To access some mailbox/subscription, you need to use the maibox
project
(example: imap-processor depends on mailbox, and imapProcessor bean is
injected with mailboxmanager/subscriptionManager). So far, so good.
mailbox is the interface to the mailboxes,...": I had a quick look at
the
pop3server dependencies and saw that it was depending on store. I
didn't
find that logical, removed it, and it was still compiling. Logical...
Thinking in "what depends on what" helps much.
pop3server should not depend on store and only depend on mailbox. If
its not the case its a bug..
However, the other '"domain classes" (user, virutalusertable, domain
in
the
sense 'domain.tld') are accessed in a all different way. This comes
probably
from the history (before using imap projects, server used its own
storage
system which has been kept). In spring-beans.xml, you've got:
- users-store: org.apache.james.container.spring.SpringUsersStore
class
being injected via @Resource
- virtualusertable-store :
org.apache.james.container.spring.SpringVirtualUserTableStore being
injected
via @Resource
- domainlist: XML/JDBC/JPADomainList being injected via @Resource
I see there 3 differents access to the persisted domain classes
(Mailbox,
Message, Subscription, Domain, User, VirtualUserTable):
1. Injection of mailbox project (MailboxManager, MessageManager,
SubscriptionManger,...) beans
2. Injection of spring-common project (SpringUsersStore,
SpringVirtualUserTableStore) beans
3. Injection of core-function project (XML/JDBC/JPADomainList) beans
If you persist everything in a database, accesses for JPAUser is done
completely differently compared to the JPAMailbox for example.
Could you explain whats the dfference ?
Coming to the point, should we:
1. Continue to live with heterogeneous access the persistence layer?
2. Have uniform access to persistence for all services and all
domains? In this case, a store project would be a good name, but
is
already taken... we could always rename the existing one...
WDYT?
Eric
PS: I didn't even talked of the AbstractFileRepository
The whole *Store stuff is just a pita (james-server).. The idea with
its was that you can configure for example different UserRepositories
and just lookup the right one via the UsersStore. So its really
flexible. However the loading of the classes + injecting the right
dependencies is really complicated with this. I'm open to new ideas to
make it more easy :)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bye,
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Bye,
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org
