You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-user@james.apache.org by Dwayne Nelson <e9...@gmail.com> on 2011/06/08 13:39:49 UTC
is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
(weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed documentation
or an active community. I know the James team is busy developing
version 3 and I would really like to use it as it represents the future
but I am wondering if I might be better using the 2.x version of James
for now. A project roadmap would make this decision easier but I wasn't
able to find one. Is there a publicly available James 3.0 roadmap?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
Posted by Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>.
Hi,
To not loose it, could you open a jira (something like "roadmap for
server 3.1") and write your points in it?
Anyone could also add his requirements.
Tks,
- Eric
On 09/06/11 20:17, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
> Thanks. From everything I have read, the project seems to have most if
> not all of the features I am looking for already. It is also modular so
> I shouldn't have to carry the overhead of the features that I am not
> interested in using. I appreciate this as footprint size and process
> efficiency may eventually become my biggest concerns.[1]
>
> An earlier conversation here suggested that formal support for SMTP
> servers running on multiple ports might be a desirable area for future
> development. But I have dropped that conversation for the moment while I
> struggle with the encrypted single port scenario (TLS on 465).[2]
>
> Once I have all of that running, I was going to look into what modules
> the project has for Web-mail.[3]
>
> I eventually want to write some custom modules for mail filtering, but
> I'm obviously not there yet.[4]
>
> So, I guess my want list would be:
>
> [1] speed/footprint enhancements
> [2] formal support for multiple ports
> [3] Web mail modules (if it doesn't already exist), and
> [4] additional support for customized mail handling
>
> On 6/8/2011 02:06 PM, Eric Charles Apache wrote:
>> Hi,
>> The good news is that there is not private/hidden roadmap - everything
>> is plain public a-la-apache.
>>
>> The bad news is that there no formal roadmap. I think every developer
>> has in mind some features, plans... but they are not formalized.
>>
>> Maybe this is the good occasion to start this job.
>> So let me return you the answer: "What would be your ideal roadmap".
>>
>> About the final 3.0 release for your project, I don't know... Today
>> snapshots are available with decent confidence. Also it depends on
>> which features you are looking for?
>>
>> Tks,
>> - Eric
>>
>>
>> On 08/06/11 13:39, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
>>> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
>>> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
>>> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed documentation
>>> or an active community. I know the James team is busy developing version
>>> 3 and I would really like to use it as it represents the future but I am
>>> wondering if I might be better using the 2.x version of James for now. A
>>> project roadmap would make this decision easier but I wasn't able to
>>> find one. Is there a publicly available James 3.0 roadmap?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
Posted by Dwayne Nelson <e9...@gmail.com>.
Thanks. From everything I have read, the project seems to have most if
not all of the features I am looking for already. It is also modular so
I shouldn't have to carry the overhead of the features that I am not
interested in using. I appreciate this as footprint size and process
efficiency may eventually become my biggest concerns.[1]
An earlier conversation here suggested that formal support for SMTP
servers running on multiple ports might be a desirable area for future
development. But I have dropped that conversation for the moment while
I struggle with the encrypted single port scenario (TLS on 465).[2]
Once I have all of that running, I was going to look into what modules
the project has for Web-mail.[3]
I eventually want to write some custom modules for mail filtering, but
I'm obviously not there yet.[4]
So, I guess my want list would be:
[1] speed/footprint enhancements
[2] formal support for multiple ports
[3] Web mail modules (if it doesn't already exist), and
[4] additional support for customized mail handling
On 6/8/2011 02:06 PM, Eric Charles Apache wrote:
> Hi,
> The good news is that there is not private/hidden roadmap - everything
> is plain public a-la-apache.
>
> The bad news is that there no formal roadmap. I think every developer
> has in mind some features, plans... but they are not formalized.
>
> Maybe this is the good occasion to start this job.
> So let me return you the answer: "What would be your ideal roadmap".
>
> About the final 3.0 release for your project, I don't know... Today
> snapshots are available with decent confidence. Also it depends on
> which features you are looking for?
>
> Tks,
> - Eric
>
>
> On 08/06/11 13:39, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
>> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
>> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
>> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed documentation
>> or an active community. I know the James team is busy developing version
>> 3 and I would really like to use it as it represents the future but I am
>> wondering if I might be better using the 2.x version of James for now. A
>> project roadmap would make this decision easier but I wasn't able to
>> find one. Is there a publicly available James 3.0 roadmap?
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
Posted by Eric Charles Apache <er...@apache.org>.
Hi,
The good news is that there is not private/hidden roadmap - everything
is plain public a-la-apache.
The bad news is that there no formal roadmap. I think every developer
has in mind some features, plans... but they are not formalized.
Maybe this is the good occasion to start this job.
So let me return you the answer: "What would be your ideal roadmap".
About the final 3.0 release for your project, I don't know... Today
snapshots are available with decent confidence. Also it depends on which
features you are looking for?
Tks,
- Eric
On 08/06/11 13:39, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed documentation
> or an active community. I know the James team is busy developing version
> 3 and I would really like to use it as it represents the future but I am
> wondering if I might be better using the 2.x version of James for now. A
> project roadmap would make this decision easier but I wasn't able to
> find one. Is there a publicly available James 3.0 roadmap?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: SMTP server multiple port configuration -- suggested change to
example
Posted by Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>.
Hi,
Tks for the fix.
It is now committed in the smtp-ssl.xml example
Eric
On 14/06/11 13:51, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
> So I haven't looked into how to use jira yet, but I think I found an
> update for the configuration supporting multiport SMTP as it appears on
> the following repository file:
>
> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/container-spring/src/main/config/examples/smtpserver-ssl.xml
>
>
> When I tried adding the block to james-server-context.xml, I was having
> the same problem with james exiting. Setting spring log to debug, I
> noticed the following lines shortly before the exit:
>
> DEBUG 02:44:58,519 |
> org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory |
> Finished creating instance of bean
> 'smtpserver-ssl:org.apache.james.smtpserver.CoreCmdHandlerLoader'
> DEBUG 02:44:58,534 |
> org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory |
> Creating shared instance of singleton bean 'smtpserver-ssl:null'
>
> so I updated james-server-context.xml to the following (adding the smtp
> jmx handler for the ssl block):
>
> <property name="jmxHandlersPackage"
> value="org.apache.james.smtpserver.jmx.JMXHandlersLoader"/>
>
> here it is in context:
>
> <!--
> SMTP Server SSL
> -->
> <bean id="smtpserver-ssl"
> class="org.apache.james.smtpserver.netty.SMTPServer">
> <property name="protocolHandlerChain" ref="smtpProtocolHandlerChain-ssl"/>
> </bean>
>
> <bean id="smtpProtocolHandlerChain-ssl"
> class="org.apache.james.container.spring.bean.postprocessor.ProtocolHandlerChainPostProcessor">
>
> <property name="coreHandlersPackage"
> value="org.apache.james.smtpserver.CoreCmdHandlerLoader"/>
> <property name="jmxHandlersPackage"
> value="org.apache.james.smtpserver.jmx.JMXHandlersLoader"/>
> <property name="beanName" value="smtpserver-ssl"/>
> </bean>
>
> With this change, my multiport (25, 465) smtp configuration started
> working. I added a line in log4j.properties to turn logging on for the
> new smtpserver-ssl and now see that everything is working fine.
>
> -Dwayne
>
> On 06/10/2011 05:56 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
>> Don't hesitate to open jira with contributions on documentation.
>> The web site in SVN is a bit more complete (especially on
>> configuration level) now than the one on-line.
>> The new version will be deployed for server 3.0-beta1.
>>
>> Tks,
>> - Eric
>>
>> On 09/06/11 20:26, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
>>> I definitely had the feeling that the features and stability were good
>>> enough. My bigger concern with 3.0 is that the documentation wont be as
>>> complete so how to use certain features may not be as obvious to someone
>>> like myself who is new to the code. As I become more familiar with
>>> James, I will certainly be willing to help with the documentation effort
>>> myself. For now, though, I have more questions than answers.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> -Dwayne
>>>
>>> On 6/9/2011 01:57 AM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>>>> Am 08.06.2011 13:39, schrieb Dwayne Nelson:
>>>>> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
>>>>> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
>>>>> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed
>>>>> documentation or an active community. I know the James team is busy
>>>>> developing version 3 and I would really like to use it as it
>>>>> represents the future but I am wondering if I might be better using
>>>>> the 2.x version of James for now. A project roadmap would make this
>>>>> decision easier but I wasn't able to find one. Is there a publicly
>>>>> available James 3.0 roadmap?
>>>>
>>>> Hi there,
>>>>
>>>> to be honest there isn't any "real" roadmap. But I will try to push
>>>> the beta release this evening or tommorrow.
>>>> If I would start a new project I would definitly use 3.0. A few of us
>>>> already use it in production.
>>>>
>>>> Bye,
>>>> Norman
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
SMTP server multiple port configuration -- suggested change to example
Posted by Dwayne Nelson <e9...@gmail.com>.
So I haven't looked into how to use jira yet, but I think I found an
update for the configuration supporting multiport SMTP as it appears on
the following repository file:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/server/trunk/container-spring/src/main/config/examples/smtpserver-ssl.xml
When I tried adding the block to james-server-context.xml, I was having
the same problem with james exiting. Setting spring log to debug, I
noticed the following lines shortly before the exit:
DEBUG 02:44:58,519 |
org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory |
Finished creating instance of bean
'smtpserver-ssl:org.apache.james.smtpserver.CoreCmdHandlerLoader'
DEBUG 02:44:58,534 |
org.springframework.beans.factory.support.DefaultListableBeanFactory |
Creating shared instance of singleton bean 'smtpserver-ssl:null'
so I updated james-server-context.xml to the following (adding the smtp
jmx handler for the ssl block):
<property name="jmxHandlersPackage"
value="org.apache.james.smtpserver.jmx.JMXHandlersLoader"/>
here it is in context:
<!--
SMTP Server SSL
-->
<bean id="smtpserver-ssl"
class="org.apache.james.smtpserver.netty.SMTPServer">
<property name="protocolHandlerChain" ref="smtpProtocolHandlerChain-ssl"/>
</bean>
<bean id="smtpProtocolHandlerChain-ssl"
class="org.apache.james.container.spring.bean.postprocessor.ProtocolHandlerChainPostProcessor">
<property name="coreHandlersPackage"
value="org.apache.james.smtpserver.CoreCmdHandlerLoader"/>
<property name="jmxHandlersPackage"
value="org.apache.james.smtpserver.jmx.JMXHandlersLoader"/>
<property name="beanName" value="smtpserver-ssl"/>
</bean>
With this change, my multiport (25, 465) smtp configuration started
working. I added a line in log4j.properties to turn logging on for the
new smtpserver-ssl and now see that everything is working fine.
-Dwayne
On 06/10/2011 05:56 AM, Eric Charles wrote:
> Don't hesitate to open jira with contributions on documentation.
> The web site in SVN is a bit more complete (especially on
> configuration level) now than the one on-line.
> The new version will be deployed for server 3.0-beta1.
>
> Tks,
> - Eric
>
> On 09/06/11 20:26, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
>> I definitely had the feeling that the features and stability were good
>> enough. My bigger concern with 3.0 is that the documentation wont be as
>> complete so how to use certain features may not be as obvious to someone
>> like myself who is new to the code. As I become more familiar with
>> James, I will certainly be willing to help with the documentation effort
>> myself. For now, though, I have more questions than answers.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> -Dwayne
>>
>> On 6/9/2011 01:57 AM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>>> Am 08.06.2011 13:39, schrieb Dwayne Nelson:
>>>> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
>>>> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
>>>> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed
>>>> documentation or an active community. I know the James team is busy
>>>> developing version 3 and I would really like to use it as it
>>>> represents the future but I am wondering if I might be better using
>>>> the 2.x version of James for now. A project roadmap would make this
>>>> decision easier but I wasn't able to find one. Is there a publicly
>>>> available James 3.0 roadmap?
>>>
>>> Hi there,
>>>
>>> to be honest there isn't any "real" roadmap. But I will try to push
>>> the beta release this evening or tommorrow.
>>> If I would start a new project I would definitly use 3.0. A few of us
>>> already use it in production.
>>>
>>> Bye,
>>> Norman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
Posted by Eric Charles <er...@apache.org>.
Don't hesitate to open jira with contributions on documentation.
The web site in SVN is a bit more complete (especially on configuration
level) now than the one on-line.
The new version will be deployed for server 3.0-beta1.
Tks,
- Eric
On 09/06/11 20:26, Dwayne Nelson wrote:
> I definitely had the feeling that the features and stability were good
> enough. My bigger concern with 3.0 is that the documentation wont be as
> complete so how to use certain features may not be as obvious to someone
> like myself who is new to the code. As I become more familiar with
> James, I will certainly be willing to help with the documentation effort
> myself. For now, though, I have more questions than answers.
>
> Thanks,
> -Dwayne
>
> On 6/9/2011 01:57 AM, Norman Maurer wrote:
>> Am 08.06.2011 13:39, schrieb Dwayne Nelson:
>>> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
>>> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
>>> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed
>>> documentation or an active community. I know the James team is busy
>>> developing version 3 and I would really like to use it as it
>>> represents the future but I am wondering if I might be better using
>>> the 2.x version of James for now. A project roadmap would make this
>>> decision easier but I wasn't able to find one. Is there a publicly
>>> available James 3.0 roadmap?
>>
>> Hi there,
>>
>> to be honest there isn't any "real" roadmap. But I will try to push
>> the beta release this evening or tommorrow.
>> If I would start a new project I would definitly use 3.0. A few of us
>> already use it in production.
>>
>> Bye,
>> Norman
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
Posted by Dwayne Nelson <e9...@gmail.com>.
I definitely had the feeling that the features and stability were good
enough. My bigger concern with 3.0 is that the documentation wont be as
complete so how to use certain features may not be as obvious to someone
like myself who is new to the code. As I become more familiar with
James, I will certainly be willing to help with the documentation effort
myself. For now, though, I have more questions than answers.
Thanks,
-Dwayne
On 6/9/2011 01:57 AM, Norman Maurer wrote:
> Am 08.06.2011 13:39, schrieb Dwayne Nelson:
>> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
>> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
>> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed
>> documentation or an active community. I know the James team is busy
>> developing version 3 and I would really like to use it as it
>> represents the future but I am wondering if I might be better using
>> the 2.x version of James for now. A project roadmap would make this
>> decision easier but I wasn't able to find one. Is there a publicly
>> available James 3.0 roadmap?
>
> Hi there,
>
> to be honest there isn't any "real" roadmap. But I will try to push
> the beta release this evening or tommorrow.
> If I would start a new project I would definitly use 3.0. A few of us
> already use it in production.
>
> Bye,
> Norman
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org
Re: is there a public James 3.0 roadmap?
Posted by Norman Maurer <no...@apache.org>.
Am 08.06.2011 13:39, schrieb Dwayne Nelson:
> I'm trying to get a feel for when James version 3 will be complete
> (weeks vs months?). The project that I'm working on doesn't require
> absolute stability (yet) but does rely on either detailed
> documentation or an active community. I know the James team is busy
> developing version 3 and I would really like to use it as it
> represents the future but I am wondering if I might be better using
> the 2.x version of James for now. A project roadmap would make this
> decision easier but I wasn't able to find one. Is there a publicly
> available James 3.0 roadmap?
Hi there,
to be honest there isn't any "real" roadmap. But I will try to push the
beta release this evening or tommorrow.
If I would start a new project I would definitly use 3.0. A few of us
already use it in production.
Bye,
Norman
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-user-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-user-help@james.apache.org