Hello all, I had gone through the wiki, but could not find any page about writing new plugins. Any pointers towards plugin api/docs will be very helpful. with warm regards, raj
On Sat, 2007-06-16 at 00:25 +0530, Rajkumar S wrote:> Hello all, > > I had gone through the wiki, but could not find any page about writing > new plugins. Any pointers towards plugin api/docs will be very > helpful.Unfortunately there isn't any plugin documentation currently. What kind of a plugin do you want to write? Looking at the existing plugins is probably the easiest way to get started. Also src/lib-storage/mail-storage.h is the most important API if you're going to access mailboxes. The only plugin specific API is that Dovecot calls <plugin_name>_init() at startup and <plugin_name>_deinit() when it unloads the plugin. Everything else can uses the same APIs as Dovecot internally. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://dovecot.org/pipermail/dovecot/attachments/20070615/d8184804/attachment-0002.bin>
On 6/16/07, Timo Sirainen <tss at iki.fi> wrote:> Unfortunately there isn't any plugin documentation currently. What kind > of a plugin do you want to write? Looking at the existing plugins is > probably the easiest way to get started. Also > src/lib-storage/mail-storage.h is the most important API if you're going > to access mailboxes.Thanks for the super quick reply! I am toying with the idea of storing mails in mysql. I was going though the archives and read the thread about this. I have also downloaded your previous attempt at this. I will go through the sources and ping you with questions. regards, raj
On 6/16/07, ?ukasz Mierzwa <prymitive at pcserwis.net> wrote:> Maybe You could make a checksum of an attachment and use it as a ID, this way > You could have each unique attachment stored only once in db. What do You > think?Wonderful idea. I was thinking about the attachment id and identifying unique attachments right now :) Thanks! raj
Friday 15 of June 2007 22:45:38 Rajkumar S napisa?(a):> On 6/16/07, ?ukasz Mierzwa <prymitive at pcserwis.net> wrote: > > To spam this ml more I must say that per user db is not that good idea > > I must confess that I got this idea from Zimbra. I was just curious as > to why they went for this instead of the obvious one table for all > users. I will of course run some benchmark and then only choose the > final design.Speed is good, but what about security? You would need to create new db when creating new user, if userdb is not in mysql than You would need to connect to it with priviliges to create new db (quite high priviliges I think). Also I have no idea why this would be faster than per user tables. -- ?ukasz Mierzwa
On 6/16/07, ?ukasz Mierzwa <prymitive at pcserwis.net> wrote:> Speed is good, but what about security? You would need to create new db when > creating new user, if userdb is not in mysql than You would need to connect > to it with priviliges to create new db (quite high priviliges I think). > Also I have no idea why this would be faster than per user tables.I agree with you, but I was just curious as to why Zimbra chose to one db per mail box. I have not finalised yet on any thing, (actually I am just starting). raj