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 2008/11/01 21:04:45 UTC
[mailet base] Packaging
(as can be seen at
http://james.apache.org/mailet/base/apidocs/index.html) base mailet
has quite a lot of packages for such a small library. they also seem
quite messy - and so unlikely to play well with OSGi (for example).
perhaps we should take this opportunity to rationalise into a single package
ATM we have
org.apache.james.util.mailet
org.apache.mailet
org.apache.mailet.dates
i can see an argument for org.apache.mailet.base but there perhaps
org.apache.mailet should be reserved just for the API. in which case
org.apache.james.mailet.base might be better.
opinions?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailet base] Packaging
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Danny Angus <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think ... org.apache.mailet for things in the mailet project.
> org.apache.james.mailet for anything in server.
> If that opinion helps in any way!
>
> d.
>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>> (as can be seen at
>>> http://james.apache.org/mailet/base/apidocs/index.html) base mailet
>>> has quite a lot of packages for such a small library. they also seem
>>> quite messy - and so unlikely to play well with OSGi (for example).
>>>
>>> perhaps we should take this opportunity to rationalise into a single package
>>>
>>> ATM we have
>>> org.apache.james.util.mailet
>>> org.apache.mailet
>>> org.apache.mailet.dates
>>>
>>> i can see an argument for org.apache.mailet.base but there perhaps
>>> org.apache.mailet should be reserved just for the API. in which case
>>> org.apache.james.mailet.base might be better.
>>>
>>> opinions?
>>
>> Make sense.
>>
>> As we already started using "org.apache.mailet" as a top level package
>> name for mailet stuff maybe org.apache.mailet.base is better.
>> org.apache.mailet.standard
>> org.apache.mailet.crypto.
>>
>> All of that code should work in any mailet container and have no other
>> dependencies on james products (IIRC).
>>
>> That said I'm also fine with org.apache.james.mailet.base.
i think there's consensus about using org.apache.mailet.base for
Mailet Base. let's discuss the others as they are ready.
unless someone jumps in sometime soon, i'm going to go ahead and repackage.
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailet base] Packaging
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Danny Angus <da...@apache.org> wrote:
> I think ... org.apache.mailet for things in the mailet project.
> org.apache.james.mailet for anything in server.
> If that opinion helps in any way!
(just a recap - not sure how much of this work has been obvious to
anyone who's hasn't read every email twice.)
we've started to try to move as many mailets out of the server as
possible. the aim is to increase the ability to decouple mailets from
james so that they can be more easily reused outside james and between
server version. http://james.apache.org/mailet/ is as far as we've got
so far. the catalog at
http://james.apache.org/mailet/standard/mailet-report.html is
particularly cool.
so the mailet subproject now contains lots of stuff as well as the mailet API
so i'm not sure whether you mean everything which is now in the mailet
subproject or just the mailet API
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailet base] Packaging
Posted by Danny Angus <da...@apache.org>.
I think ... org.apache.mailet for things in the mailet project.
org.apache.james.mailet for anything in server.
If that opinion helps in any way!
d.
On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>> (as can be seen at
>> http://james.apache.org/mailet/base/apidocs/index.html) base mailet
>> has quite a lot of packages for such a small library. they also seem
>> quite messy - and so unlikely to play well with OSGi (for example).
>>
>> perhaps we should take this opportunity to rationalise into a single package
>>
>> ATM we have
>> org.apache.james.util.mailet
>> org.apache.mailet
>> org.apache.mailet.dates
>>
>> i can see an argument for org.apache.mailet.base but there perhaps
>> org.apache.mailet should be reserved just for the API. in which case
>> org.apache.james.mailet.base might be better.
>>
>> opinions?
>
> Make sense.
>
> As we already started using "org.apache.mailet" as a top level package
> name for mailet stuff maybe org.apache.mailet.base is better.
> org.apache.mailet.standard
> org.apache.mailet.crypto.
>
> All of that code should work in any mailet container and have no other
> dependencies on james products (IIRC).
>
> That said I'm also fine with org.apache.james.mailet.base.
>
> Stefano
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: [mailet base] Packaging
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> (as can be seen at
> http://james.apache.org/mailet/base/apidocs/index.html) base mailet
> has quite a lot of packages for such a small library. they also seem
> quite messy - and so unlikely to play well with OSGi (for example).
>
> perhaps we should take this opportunity to rationalise into a single package
>
> ATM we have
> org.apache.james.util.mailet
> org.apache.mailet
> org.apache.mailet.dates
>
> i can see an argument for org.apache.mailet.base but there perhaps
> org.apache.mailet should be reserved just for the API. in which case
> org.apache.james.mailet.base might be better.
>
> opinions?
Make sense.
As we already started using "org.apache.mailet" as a top level package
name for mailet stuff maybe org.apache.mailet.base is better.
org.apache.mailet.standard
org.apache.mailet.crypto.
All of that code should work in any mailet container and have no other
dependencies on james products (IIRC).
That said I'm also fine with org.apache.james.mailet.base.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org