Uploaded image for project: 'James Server'
  1. James Server
  2. JAMES-412

Increase James component granularity / flexibility



    • Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • 2.3.0
    • 2.3.0
    • James Core
    • None


      I'm planning a few changes in the main blocks and cleaning the assembly.

      Here are a few example:

      1) Remove unused dependecy from the current assembly: e.g.
      org.apache.james.services.MailStore from SMTPServer/RemoteManager/POP3Server,
      org.apache.james.services.JamesConnectionManager from James, org.apache.avalon.cornerstone.services.threads.ThreadManager from JamesSpoolManager.

      2) Deprecate/Remove unused methods from common interfaces: e.g. MailServer provides 4 sendMails methods but only 1 is used from SMTPHandler and MessageProcessor. The other 3 methods are always accessed via the MailetContext interface (provided by the same component: James).

      3) Remove the inboundSpool concept from the MailStore by promoting the "inbound" SpoolRepository to a toplevel block that James and JamesSpoolManager will depend on. 2 advantages: possibility to implement multiple spoolmanagers with multiple spoolrepositories, limit the interdependencies of components (the Spoolmanager does not need the full MailStore but only the inbound spoolrepository).

      4) Promote MailetLoader and MatcherLoader to block components: this allow us to make them easily configurable and allow to limit the knowledge needed by the SpoolManager (the spoolmanager itself does not need the MailetContext knowledge). To do that we need to change the Loaders to be Serviceable and to remove the MailetContext parameter from the load calls.

      5) More to come....

      I would like to know if any committer is against this kind of changes.

      The number 3, for example, will need minor config.xml changes (the inbound spool conf moved outside the spoolmanager conf).

      The others will be transparent for users that didn't change the assembly (MOST users).

      Including internal "API" changes (as for number 2) is a point in favor of 3.0 instead 2.3.0 for the next release.

      I will link the related commits to this issue, and comment the progress here.




            bago Stefano Bagnara
            bago Stefano Bagnara
            1 Vote for this issue
            1 Start watching this issue