Hi Xavier,
Glad to read you're working on a new mailbox implementation.
Yes, for now the list is set in the code, which can limit thing.
The mailbox responsibility spawns the mailbox itself, but also the
subscription (the link between a user and a mailbox). So when you say
JPA, you automatically say jpa-mailboxmanager and
jpa-subscriptionmanager. Do you see usecases where we should specify
alternate subscription providers?
We could reuse the mailbox.xml file and let
MailboxConfigurationBeanFactoryPostProcessor be more permissive in first
instance, simply by prefixing any given string (jpa for example) to
'-mailboxmanager' and '-subscriptionmanager'.
In you case, you could use 'foo', and have the 'foo-mailboxmanager' and
'foo-subscriptionmanager' beans defined in the spring context.
WDYT?
On 02/08/11 15:37, Xavier Portefaix wrote:
Hello,
I try to implement a new mailbox provider, and i was stun that in
configuration file mailbox.xml, the value are restricted.
The possible values are encoded in
org.apache.james.container.spring.factorypostprocessor.MailboxConfigurationBeanFactoryPostProcessor,
and they are not used anywhereelse.
I think the possible value of a provider should be defined in a file
that mailboxconfigurationbeanfactory should read, like this:
<providers>
<provider value="jpa">
<mailbox>jpa-mailboxmanager</mailbox>
<subscription>jpa-subscriptionManager</subscription>
</provider>
</providers>
With this file, it will be possible to implement all attended mailbox type.
Or there is limitations that i didn't see ?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
--
Eric Charles
http://about.echarles.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
