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 2008/05/10 11:03:56 UTC
[mailets] packages for new libraries?
the packaging for the new mailet products is the same as in JAMES.
probably worth thinking about whether we take this opportunity to
repackage.
opinions?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailets] packages for new libraries?
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>
>> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>>>
>>>> the packaging for the new mailet products is the same as in JAMES.
>>>> probably worth thinking about whether we take this opportunity to
>>>> repackage.
>>>>
>>>> opinions?
>>>
>>> Do you mean the class packages (org.apache.mailet) ?
>>
>> class packages
>>
>> org.apache.james.transport.*
>>
>> - robert
>
> If you plan to also use the resulting library in a future v2.4.x release
> maybe we should also consider the backward compatibility.
backward compatibility for packages is a two edged sword :-)
repacking would allow users to easier try the new versions in older
server versions but would introducing upgrading issues once the
originals are deleted
> At config.xml level it would be a "minor" issue because it will only require
> importing the new package name (we mostly suggest the use of the classname
> without the package in the matcher/mailets configuration), but this will
> break config.xml for people upgrading.
>
> To keep 100% backward compatibility we should otherwise create a backward
> compatibility kit that will show "old" mailets (simple extensions without
> any change) in the previous package, too.
+1
> I think the priority is backward compatibility: so if the "hack" above is
> acceptable for a 2.x branch then we could even repackage.
IMHO the whole class scanning thing seems like a bit of hack to me but
i'll probably open another thread for this...
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailets] packages for new libraries?
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>> the packaging for the new mailet products is the same as in JAMES.
>>> probably worth thinking about whether we take this opportunity to
>>> repackage.
>>>
>>> opinions?
>> Do you mean the class packages (org.apache.mailet) ?
>
> class packages
>
> org.apache.james.transport.*
>
> - robert
If you plan to also use the resulting library in a future v2.4.x release
maybe we should also consider the backward compatibility.
At config.xml level it would be a "minor" issue because it will only
require importing the new package name (we mostly suggest the use of the
classname without the package in the matcher/mailets configuration), but
this will break config.xml for people upgrading.
To keep 100% backward compatibility we should otherwise create a
backward compatibility kit that will show "old" mailets (simple
extensions without any change) in the previous package, too.
I think the priority is backward compatibility: so if the "hack" above
is acceptable for a 2.x branch then we could even repackage.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailets] packages for new libraries?
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, May 10, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>
>> the packaging for the new mailet products is the same as in JAMES.
>> probably worth thinking about whether we take this opportunity to
>> repackage.
>>
>> opinions?
>
> Do you mean the class packages (org.apache.mailet) ?
class packages
org.apache.james.transport.*
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailets] packages for new libraries?
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> the packaging for the new mailet products is the same as in JAMES.
> probably worth thinking about whether we take this opportunity to
> repackage.
>
> opinions?
Do you mean the class packages (org.apache.mailet) ?
Or the packages we release and distribute?
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org