archiva-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Olivier Lamy <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: maven-indexer / Lucene
Date Sat, 19 Aug 2017 11:42:03 GMT
Hi
So I have merged to master :-)

On 18 August 2017 at 01:22, Martin Stockhammer <martin_s@apache.org> wrote:

> Hi Olivier,
>
> great! I will look at it. I will give you feedback the next days.
> And yes I have to optimize the jcr oak part and stabilize it. I will work
> on it.
>
> Greetings
>
> Martin
>
>
>
>
> Am 15. August 2017 11:30:04 MESZ schrieb Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>:
> >Hi
> >Took a bit of time but I finally get the branch working :-)
> >branch: feature/jcr_oak
> >Let me know what do you think of?
> >Well I guess there are still some optimisations to do for jcr oak
> >I can see some logs:
> >21:02:39.559 [1071] [main] WARN  oak.query.QueryImpl - Traversal query
> >(query without index): SELECT * FROM [nt:base] WHERE [jcr:uuid] = $id
> >/*
> >oak-internal */; consider creating an index
> >21:02:39.563 [328] [main] WARN  plugins.index.Cursors$TraversingCursor
> >-
> >Traversed 1000 nodes with filter Filter(query=SELECT * FROM [nt:base]
> >WHERE
> >[jcr:uuid] = $id /* oak-internal */, path=*,
> >property=[jcr:uuid=[21232f29-7a57-35a7-8389-4a0e4a801fc3]]); consider
> >creating an index or changing the query
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >On 8 July 2017 at 06:22, Martin <martin_s@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Olivier,
> >>
> >> great!
> >> For my understanding: The dependency to lucene in the pom of
> >indexer-core
> >> is
> >> still there, but the lucene packages are moved to the
> >> ...maven.index.shaded...
> >> package? You develop indexer-core with the standard lucene packages
> >and the
> >> shading is executed during the build of the indexer package?
> >>
> >> I think that may solve our dependency problem.
> >>
> >> I still got errors in the maven-indexer module, but I think the
> >status is
> >> still "work in progress". I don't want to interfere too much with
> >your
> >> changes.
> >>
> >> I'm not sure, if we should keep the JCR Oak as metadata
> >implementation. I
> >> think OrientDB may be a feasible alternative: Embeddable,  Graph
> >database,
> >> Lucene index optional and may be omitted, Apache License. And with
> >JCR Oak
> >> we
> >> also have to convert the existing metadata index.
> >>
> >> But one step after the other. If we agree that the shaded indexer
> >works, we
> >> should merge only the maven indexer changes to the master branch
> >without
> >> the
> >> JCR/lucene update and change the JCR and or lucene afterwards.
> >>
> >> Greetings
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >> Am Freitag, 7. Juli 2017, 09:23:24 CEST schrieb Olivier Lamy:
> >> > So the repo contains a branch feature/jar_shaded_lucene here
> >> >
> >https://git1-us-west.apache.org/repos/asf?p=maven-indexer.git;a=summary
> >> > and I pushed what I started for Archiva in the branch called
> >> feature/jcr_oak
> >> > So in order to test it you need to build first maven-indexer from
> >the
> >> > branch feature/jar_shaded_lucene
> >> >
> >> > On 6 July 2017 at 22:31, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org> wrote:
> >> > > I will try to share the work I did tomorrow in a branch
> >> > >
> >> > > On Thu, 6 Jul 2017 at 7:48 pm, Martin Stockhammer
> ><martin_s@apache.org
> >> >
> >> > >
> >> > > wrote:
> >> > >> We have different lucene (incompatible) dependencies that
> >prevents us
> >> to
> >> > >> update the maven indexer and/or jackrabbit. And this will happen
> >again
> >> > >> with
> >> > >> each upgrade from one of these two packages in the future.
> >> > >> So would be really good if we can find a solution that removes
> >one of
> >> the
> >> > >> lucene dependencies.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Greetings
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Martin
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Am 6. Juli 2017 09:36:06 MESZ schrieb Chris Graham <
> >> chrisgwarp@gmail.com
> >> > >>
> >> > >> >Can I please an obvious/stupid question?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >What is driving this need for change?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >From a quick read of the thread above, all of the options
> >appear to
> >> > >> >introduce a lot of breaking changes, and a whole lot more
> >> uncertainty.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >So, what is so broken that it is driving these changes?
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Sent from my iPhone
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> On 6 Jul 2017, at 12:39 pm, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>
> >wrote:
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> Yup.
> >> > >> >> The idea is to have an extra jar produced by the
> >maven-indexer with
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >shaded
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> lucene version.
> >> > >> >> So the lucene classes (version used by Maven indexer)
will be
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >relocated in
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >> a package called org.apache.maven.index.shaded.lucene
(such
> >> > >> >> org.apache.maven.index.shaded.lucene.search.BooleanClause
)
> >> > >> >> Then you exclude lucene dependencies used by maven indexer
> >and
> >> voila.
> >> > >> >> The voila is a bit optimistic and not so ezy but anyway
> >working on
> >> it
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >ATM.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>> On 6 July 2017 at 07:08, Martin <martin_s@apache.org>
wrote:
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> What do you mean exactly by shading? Moving to another
> >package
> >> name?
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> Am Mittwoch, 5. Juli 2017, 01:19:17 CEST schrieb
Olivier
> >Lamy:
> >> > >> >>>> maybe an option is to use some shading?
> >> > >> >>>> I'm thinking of shading lucene packages used
by maven
> >indexer. I
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >can
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>> easily
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>> provide a build for that.
> >> > >> >>>> WDYT?
> >> > >> >>>>
> >> > >> >>>>> On 26 June 2017 at 11:49, Olivier Lamy <olamy@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>> Hi
> >> > >> >>>>> graph/document storage could be convenient
(but not
> >possible
> >> with
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> neo4j as
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>> it's GPL license [1])
> >> > >> >>>>> well we can add solr as an additional webapp
with our
> >jetty
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> distribution
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>> but this will be a pain for users who want
to use tomcat
> >or any
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >other
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>> servlet container...
> >> > >> >>>>> we still need to investigate a new storage
model :-)
> >> > >> >>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>> Olivier
> >> > >> >>>>> [1] https://neo4j.com/licensing/
> >> > >> >>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> On 25 June 2017 at 06:26, Martin <martin_s@apache.org>
> >wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>>> Yes, you are right. The lucene dependency
causes a lot of
> >> trouble
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >and
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> will
> >> > >> >>>>>> cause headaches with each version change
of one of the
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >dependencies.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> What are the requirements for a replacement?
> >> > >> >>>>>> - We want to store hierarchical data?
> >> > >> >>>>>> - We want to store metadata for nodes
?
> >> > >> >>>>>> - Fulltext search (only metadata or for
artifacts too?)
> >> > >> >>>>>> - Blob / Artifact storage (I don't think
so, but not so
> >> familiar
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >with
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>> the
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> archiva artifact model)?
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> Maybe some graph database may be an alternative.
Don't
> >know if
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >the
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> license of
> >> > >> >>>>>> neo4j is compatible to the apache license,
and I think it
> >> brings
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> lucene
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> as
> >> > >> >>>>>> dependency too. I will have a look.
> >> > >> >>>>>> Problem is, if there is fulltext search
needed, I think,
> >for
> >> most
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >of
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>> the
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> frameworks we get a lucene dependency,
if it's embedded.
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> Other alternatives:
> >> > >> >>>>>> - Implement fulltext search by our own
(index of the
> >metadata
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >stored
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>> via
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> the
> >> > >> >>>>>> archiva api) and use the lucene dependency
that comes
> >from the
> >> > >> >>>>>> maven-indexer
> >> > >> >>>>>> - Jcr Oak with Solr. Solr is not embedded,
must run as
> >its own
> >> > >> >>>>>> application
> >> > >> >>>>>> (war).
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> Greetings
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> Martin
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> Am Samstag, 24. Juni 2017, 14:05:26 CEST
schrieb Olivier
> >Lamy:
> >> > >> >>>>>>> well this gonna be a pain.
> >> > >> >>>>>>> IMHO we need to find a new alternative
to jcr oak.
> >> > >> >>>>>>> And something not using Lucene as
it's a real pain to
> >have
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >different
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>>> librairies using lucene as they do
not update in the
> >same time
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >(and
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> Lucene
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>> break backward compat so quickly...)
> >> > >> >>>>>>> Any ideas? I'd like to have something
embedded (but with
> >a
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >possible
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>>> external server configuration).
> >> > >> >>>>>>> There is currently a Cassandra implementation.
I was not
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >satisfied
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>>> about
> >> > >> >>>>>>> performance but I guess I did that
4yo ago so can be
> >improved
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >for
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>> sure
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> :-)
> >> > >> >>>>>> :
> >> > >> >>>>>>> Maybe orientdb?
> >> > >> >>>>>>> What else?
> >> > >> >>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>> On 24 June 2017 at 09:50, Olivier
Lamy
> ><olamy@apache.org>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>> well the issue is non compatible
version of Lucene for
> >Maven
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> Indexer
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> and
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>> Oak (well I can try push a patch
to Oak for
> >upgrading...)
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> On 24 June 2017 at 08:41,
Olivier Lamy
> ><olamy@apache.org>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Hi
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Maven Indexer 6.0-SNAPSHOT
doesn't need anymore plexus
> >> bridge.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> I'm working on it in the
branch ( feature/jcr_oak )
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Not sure why but I have intermittent
failure with
> >store-jcr
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> module.
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> I definitely agree on the
upgrade.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Well we can simply detect
it's not oak compatible and
> >> schedule
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >a
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> full
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> reindex (maybe with a message
in logs and ui?)
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> But we need to be sure we
can still read central index
> >and
> >> not
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> sure
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> about
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> possible lucene conflict
with oak and maven indexer.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> We can work on this branch?
(I created a Jenkins job
> >for it
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >https://builds.apache.org/view/A-D/view/Archiva/job/archi
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> va-jcr-oak-branch/)
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> If you prefer master I would
say no worries neither.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Something else to look at
is upgrading maven-core
> >etc...
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Anyway
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Cheers
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Olivier
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> On 22 June 2017 at 19:16,
Martin
> ><martin_s@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> upgrading the maven indexer
leads to some major
> >changes.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Lucene is used by maven-indexer
and also by
> >jackrabbit.
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> Jackrabbit
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> sticks to
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> the old 3.x version and,
as I see it, they will not
> >move
> >> to a
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> newer
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> version.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> There is Jackrabbit Oak
as alternative.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> I tried a proof of concept
and could replace the
> >jackrabbit
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> implementation of
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> metadata-store-jcr with
a oak implementation. At
> >least I
> >> got
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >the
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> unit
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> tests of
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> this module all to pass.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> But switching to Oak
has some drawbacks:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> - The repository format
changed and we must provide a
> >way
> >> to
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> migrate
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> (either
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> migrate the existing
repository or create a new one
> >by
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> reindexing)
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> - The lucene version
used is newer but does not match
> >to
> >> the
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> version
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> from the
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> maven-indexer dependencies.
There may come up some
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> incompatibilities
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> that are
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> not solvable without
using a modified version of one
> >of the
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> both.
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Or
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> there may
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> be the possibility to
switch to solr (as separate
> >> component)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >and
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> get rid
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> of
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> the lucene dependencies
for jcr inside the archiva
> >project.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Switching to maven-indexer
6.0-SNAPSHOT means some
> >changes
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >too:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> - The Plexus-Sisu-Bridge
does not work as before.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> - We must migrate from
the NexusIndexer to the
> >indexer API.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> So switching to the new
indexer and oak means more
> >work as
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> expected
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> and
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> risks regarding new incompatibility
problems. And I
> >think
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >this
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> cannot be
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> done
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> without broken master
builds for some time period.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> So, what should we do?
I think maven indexer is one
> >of the
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >core
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> components of
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> archiva, and we should
utilize the 3.x-version to
> >migrate
> >> to
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> the
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> new
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> indexer
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> version, even if this
means switching to jcr oak.
> >Otherwise
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >it
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> would
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> mean to
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> stick to the old version
for the next years.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> @Olivier, regarding the
maven-indexer / sisu-Bridge
> >API
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> changes, I
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> hope
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> you
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> can provide  useful help.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> I committed the PoC to
the branch feature/jcr_oak.
> >There
> >> are
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> some
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> modules
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> where the tests do not
pass (mainly because of the
> >indexer
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >API
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> changes).
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Any comments?
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Cheers
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> Am Dienstag, 13. Juni
2017, 09:07:35 CEST schrieb
> >Olivier
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >Lamy:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> forget it but we
need to ensure we can read maven
> >index
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> files....
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On 13 June 2017 at
17:06, Olivier Lamy
> ><olamy@apache.org>
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Remember jackrabbit
depends on Lucene as well so
> >> upgrading
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> Lucene
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> can be a
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> problem here.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regarding maven-indexer
yes we can depend on a
> >snapshot
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> until
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> the
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> release.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I can release
it ;-)
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 13 June 2017
at 06:06, Martin
> ><martin_s@apache.org>
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> wrote:
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the lucene
version depends on the maven indexer.
> >But I'm
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> not
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> sure
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> about
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> current state
of maven-indexer. The version has
> >not
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >changed
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >>>>>> since
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> some
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2013.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> There are
commits on the master branch since then,
> >and
> >> the
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>> lucene
> >> > >> >>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> version
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> has
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> been changed
too, but no releases were tagged.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does it make
sense to switch to the maven-indexer
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 6.0-SNAPSHOT?
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As I know
there are new compact index formats with
> >new
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>> lucene
> >> > >> >>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>> versions
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but I'm
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> not sure
if this is relevant for the maven
> >indexes.
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Cheers
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Martin
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> --
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy
|
> >http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> --
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy
|
> >http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >> > >> >>>>>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>>>>> --
> >> > >> >>>>>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >> > >> >>>>>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >> > >> >>>>>
> >> > >> >>>>> --
> >> > >> >>>>> Olivier Lamy
> >> > >> >>>>> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >> > >> >>
> >> > >> >> --
> >> > >> >> Olivier Lamy
> >> > >> >> http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >> > >>
> >> > >> --
> >> > >> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail
> >gesendet.
> >> > >
> >> > > --
> >> > > Olivier Lamy
> >> > > http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >--
> >Olivier Lamy
> >http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy
>
> --
> Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
>



-- 
Olivier Lamy
http://twitter.com/olamy | http://linkedin.com/in/olamy

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message