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 "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2007/03/10 04:04:16 UTC
RE: James deployed as plugin on Geronimo!
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> for connectivity to the JAMES service, this is where i think that
> service bus and JCA ideas are powerful. rather than thinking about
> an EJB, multiple transport mechanisms would be powerful: EJB, WS,
> JMS, JCA and so on. adopting a bus might give a lot of benefits
> for very little effort.
It might make sense to revisit some of it using JCA, but we have very
specific needs, and an overly general approach of reusing JEE is not likely
to give us the performance that we need.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: James deployed as plugin on Geronimo!
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
Noel,
I'm in favour of a JCA deployment option because it would let people
embed mail functionality in J2EE applications making it available to
systems assembled from J2EE components.
The big win this would have would be that administrators wouldn't have
to get right out of their comfort zone, the email functionality could
be monitored and operated through the same administration toolsets
they currently use for managing their *other* J2EE applications.
The cost of ownership of James isn't all about through-put and
hardware, it is also about the cost of administering applications and
training, and retaining, specialist administrators. If James
installations could be administered by people with a commonly
available skills profile, and tools which are already in place, it
would be a real benefit.
d.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: James deployed as plugin on Geronimo!
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/10/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > > It might make sense to revisit some of it using JCA, but we have very
> > > specific needs, and an overly general approach of reusing JEE is not
> likely
> > > to give us the performance that we need.
>
> > the use case i was thinking about was a JEE application requiring deep
> > email integration
>
> You need to elaborate.
example use case: application wants to creates emails which clients
will download through POP3 (say). ATM this requires out-of-container
interactions to a separate email server. running JAMES in-container
would allow messages to be fed directly to JAMES without needing to
run SMTP.
> > running james in container using JCA for integration with the JEE
> > application should be more performant than the application using
> > existing protocols to communicate via sockets. it would also be more
> > flexible.
>
> More performant for what? For the JEE app, or for the mainstream JAMES
> server which needs to get faster, not slower.
JEE application
in the above example, the JEE application would create an email
message and then push it into a connector. the bus would route this to
an appropriate JAMES processing spool. these would then be served over
POP3 by the existing JAMES code.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: James deployed as plugin on Geronimo!
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
robert burrell donkin wrote:
> > It might make sense to revisit some of it using JCA, but we have very
> > specific needs, and an overly general approach of reusing JEE is not
likely
> > to give us the performance that we need.
> the use case i was thinking about was a JEE application requiring deep
> email integration
You need to elaborate.
> running james in container using JCA for integration with the JEE
> application should be more performant than the application using
> existing protocols to communicate via sockets. it would also be more
> flexible.
More performant for what? For the JEE app, or for the mainstream JAMES
server which needs to get faster, not slower.
> for james, JCA would just be another protocol to support
Not quite. For one thing, JCA isn't a protocol. But your goal is
comparable.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: James deployed as plugin on Geronimo!
Posted by robert burrell donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On 3/10/07, Noel J. Bergman <no...@devtech.com> wrote:
> robert burrell donkin wrote:
>
> > for connectivity to the JAMES service, this is where i think that
> > service bus and JCA ideas are powerful. rather than thinking about
> > an EJB, multiple transport mechanisms would be powerful: EJB, WS,
> > JMS, JCA and so on. adopting a bus might give a lot of benefits
> > for very little effort.
>
> It might make sense to revisit some of it using JCA, but we have very
> specific needs, and an overly general approach of reusing JEE is not likely
> to give us the performance that we need.
the use case i was thinking about was a JEE application requiring deep
email integration
running james in container using JCA for integration with the JEE
application should be more performant than the application using
existing protocols to communicate via sockets. it would also be more
flexible.
for james, JCA would just be another protocol to support
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org