Re: Jackrabbit as mail backend was: [PROPOSAL] UserDataRepository

[Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de>]

robert burrell donkin schrieb:
>> > built in security means it could be used to safely expose the mail 
>> to the
>> > alternative services that robert and others have spoken of
>> >
>> I just doubt that is is suitable as a well performing IMAP backend.
>> Optimization for the use case is mandatory if you want to deal with
>> several gigabytes of messages.
>> And that is the direction things go, when users leave all their mail on
>> the server.
> > As a persistent store for user mail its would be rather cool too as the
>
> but that's exactly the sweet spot for JCRs :-)
>
> JCRs seem to me to be a much more natural fit than a conventional
> databases as email storage backends due to their hybrid nature. the
> actual storage for email content would be a file system but the small
> meta-data (flags, headers) would be in a database. (this is the basic
> setup for JCRs.)
Cool, that is just like current James DBFile Repository works and 
MailboxManager will do in future when API has stabilized.

> (i performed experiments with storing emails in JCRs last year and
> they seemed *very* quick but don't have any comparative numbers.)
The question is if a Jackrabbit performs well with typical requests from 
an IMAP server.

Okay, let's assume Jackrabbit would have sufficient performance for 
basic IMAP usage. (Which is probably true).
Would you propose to access it directly from the IMAP server, without an 
intermediate API and wrapper?
Should whole James only work with JCRs? Should usage of JCR be part of 
the Mailet API?

Joachim



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

Re: Jackrabbit as mail backend was: [PROPOSAL] UserDataRepository

[Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de>]

Am Dienstag, den 09.01.2007, 20:59 +0000 schrieb Danny Angus:

> > Should whole James only work with JCRs? Should usage of JCR be part of
> > the Mailet API?
> 
> IMO No, because we don't want to *require* any kind of sophisticated
> storage. It may be impossible to avoid specifying a simple interface
> or two, but these should be implemented by whatever the implementor
> chooses, in James' case JCR may make perfect sense.
> 
> But remember that using other formats may also still be desirable for
> interoperation with other software.

+1 Exactly. :-)

Joachim


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

Re: Jackrabbit as mail backend was: [PROPOSAL] UserDataRepository

[Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>]

On 1/9/07, Joachim Draeger <jd...@joachim-draeger.de> wrote:

> Should whole James only work with JCRs? Should usage of JCR be part of
> the Mailet API?

IMO No, because we don't want to *require* any kind of sophisticated
storage. It may be impossible to avoid specifying a simple interface
or two, but these should be implemented by whatever the implementor
chooses, in James' case JCR may make perfect sense.

But remember that using other formats may also still be desirable for
interoperation with other software.

d.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org