You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> on 2008/11/16 20:50:25 UTC
[imap] Website?
i'd like to try to push out a imap M1 this year. one of the remaining
jobs is creating a website. so we need to decide upon an URL.
http://james.apache.org/imap? http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap?
http://james.apache.org/server/imap?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [imap] Website?
Posted by Demetrios Kyriakis <de...@gmail.com>.
> i'd like to try to push out a imap M1 this year. one of the remaining
> jobs is creating a website. so we need to decide upon an URL.
>
> http://james.apache.org/imap? http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap?
> http://james.apache.org/server/imap?
Since IMAP is very important for the Enterprise (remember the "E" from
JAMES :) ), I think it should be at the "first level", so:
http://james.apache.org/imap
Demetrios.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [imap] Website?
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:32 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>> i'd like to try to push out a imap M1 this year. one of the remaining
>> jobs is creating a website. so we need to decide upon an URL.
>>
>> http://james.apache.org/imap? http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap?
>> http://james.apache.org/server/imap?
>
> http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap
>
> We used that structure in svn, maybe it's better to choose the same for
> the web.
>
> About Demetrio comment I think we can give more or less visibility to
> IMAP independently from the url we use.
the right position in subversion is a topic we should return to
the reasoning behind james/protocol/imap was that it allowed a group
of protocols library to be built up if they are factored out from the
main server. i'm keen on this idea: i think that it offers easier
maintenance in the long run, reduces pressure on server releases
(individual protocol libraries have separate release cycles) and
reduces the quantity of code that a new developer needs to learn to
start contributing. however, i'm not sure how convinced other people
were by this approach.
an alternative argument is that IMAP has quite a complex internal
module structure and that it's neater and more consistent to just add
new protocols at the top level under james without the internal
grouping.
opinions?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [imap] Website?
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> i'd like to try to push out a imap M1 this year. one of the remaining
> jobs is creating a website. so we need to decide upon an URL.
>
> http://james.apache.org/imap? http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap?
> http://james.apache.org/server/imap?
http://james.apache.org/protocol/imap
We used that structure in svn, maybe it's better to choose the same for
the web.
About Demetrio comment I think we can give more or less visibility to
IMAP independently from the url we use.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org