geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rick McGuire <>
Subject Re: A couple of javamail questions
Date Tue, 07 Mar 2006 18:42:23 GMT
Dain Sundstrom wrote:
> On Mar 7, 2006, at 9:44 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>> Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>>> On Mar 7, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Rick McGuire wrote:
>>>> I'm currently working on adding NNTP Store support to the Geronimo 
>>>> javamail code, which is built on top of the code that was 
>>>> integrated last week that added NNTP Transport support.  I've ran 
>>>> into a little gotcha on this.  The Store and Transport providers 
>>>> are defined in the javamail.default.providers file, and all 
>>>> providers must be unique (e.g., smtp, pop3, etc.).  For NNTP, we're 
>>>> going to have both a Store and a Transport, and only one can have 
>>>> the nntp name.  The Sun impl doesn't have nntp, so there's no 
>>>> guidance from that corner.
>>>> GNU classpath has an NNTP implementation, and that version uses 
>>>> "nntp" for the Store, and "nntp-post" for the Transport.  The 
>>>> Geronimo code is currently using "nntp" for the Transport, but it's 
>>>> easy enough to change that as I doubt this code is widely used 
>>>> after less than one week.  Should we copy what GNU did or use 
>>>> something else (perhaps "nntp" and "news")?
>>> I think we should follow the convention of GNU classpath
>>>> Also, the vendor information in the javamaildefault.providers file 
>>>> includes version numbers.  Should we be incrementing at least the 
>>>> smtp version number since this has changed considerably since the 
>>>> last Geronimo release, or should we change these to line up with 
>>>> Geronimo release versions.  Thus new providers would not be 1.0 
>>>> even though they are new in this release.
>>> Can we make the vendor version number match the module version 
>>> number in Maven?
>> Fairly easily done, but it is a manual process at the moment.
> Nothing a little velocity can't fix :)
>> I just wasn't certain we wanted to increment all of the version 
>> numbers for the providers even if nothing changed in the code.
> I definitely think the numbers should match.  If we want this module 
> to move at a different rate and pace then the main server, we move the 
> code to be next to the geronimo tree (a.k.a. a sub project).
I was talking more about the individual providers within the module 
(smtp, nntp, pop3, etc.).  smtp was introduced first, while the others 
are just getting introduced.  If we use the Geronimo version number, 
then the first releases of nntp and pop3 will be 1.2, and the smtp 
version number will skip from 1.0 to 1.2.

> -dain

View raw message