Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/com/oreilly/servletMailMessage.java

[James Todd <jw...@pacbell.net>]

<imho>

i like javaMail. it is large, i believe because it addresses mail systems
requirements which encompasses message generation and dispatch,
and it does require jaf (java activation framework). other then that i
feel it is trivial and intuitive , dare i say a joy, to use when generating
and dispatching mail messages. if/when the message generation
requirements expand (eg attachments, multipart, etc) then javaMail is
waiting in the wings and glad to serve.

</imho>

hope this helps,

- james

Tim O'Brien wrote:

> Why can't we use the javax.mail package as in the Email patch?  It is a
> standard.  You don't necessarily need to us the reference implementation
> from Sun.  Although some think it is bloated, it does provide a very
> straightforward way to make MIME attachments.
>
> I know it would be a smop to implement a simple mail sender, but javax.mail
> does much more and I didn't think Ant was the place for this.
>
> Tim O'Brien
> tobrien@ieee.org
>
> I'd be interested in seeing if anyone wants to start up a project to
> implement javamail under the apache umbrella
>
> At 11:58 AM 6/24/00 +0200, you wrote:
> >jhunter@locus.apache.org wrote:
> > >
> > > jhunter     00/06/23 19:46:18
> > >
> > >   Modified:    .        build.xml
> > >   Added:       src/main/com/oreilly/servlet MailMessage.java
> > >   Log:
> > >   Added MailMessage.  Hope people don't mind that I left it in
> > >   com.oreilly.servlet.
> >
> >Sorry, but I do.
> >
> >We have been preaching for years now that all java code donations to the
> >ASF must:
> >
> >  1) contain the Apache license "only"!
> >  2) have a org.apache.* package name
> >
> > >   I did that since it's going to be a mirror
> > >   of what's in the larger com.oreilly.servlet package.
> >
> >We don't mirror stuff, Jason. We try to develop and maintain it. If you
> >donate that code to us, we are free to do whatever we want with it and
> >development will take place. If you mirror you fork your code: are you
> >sure this is what you want to happen?
> >
> >NOTE: don't get me wrong, I _very_ appreciate your contributions and I'd
> >love to have all that nice org.oreilly.servlet code under our umbrella,
> >but we have being following this package-change practice and I picture
> >this very unfair about other projects that had to change their package
> >naming to adapt.
> >
> > >   I put
> > >   it under the Apache license of course, and added the ASF as an
> > >   additional copyright holder.
> >
> >Again, this is unusual and unfair for the other donated projects. All
> >donations imply that you move copyright to the ASF which provides legal
> >coverage for you. You should place all the credit issues you want after
> >the
> >
> >* ====================================================================
> >
> >in the license.
> >
> > >   Code can have two copyright holders,
> > >   meaning either party can do as they wish with the code.  This lets
> > >   the ASF upgrade to Apache License 1.2 sometime in the future, and
> > >   lets me be able to use the code without thanking the ASF for code
> > >   I wrote.  :-)
> >
> >There is something _very_ different between deserving credits for
> >something and a copyright statement. These are totally different things
> >around here.
> >
> >People and companies like IBM, Sun, James Tauber, Kevin Burton, James
> >Davidson, Jon Stevens, Donald Ball, Ricardo Rocha, myself and many
> >others are people that wrote projects or piece of projects on their own
> >and _donated_ them to the ASF, giving copyright to the ASF while keeping
> >credits for themselves.
> >
> >Now, why should you differ?
> >
> >Again, please, don't get me wrong: you know how strongly believe in
> >giving full credits to who deserves it and I completely understand how
> >important is recognition and visibility in our world. On the other hand,
> >we have been following practices that are fair and cover all these
> >issues nicely, allowing all software development to take place around
> >here and all package naming to integrate seemlessly, giving the idea to
> >users that we are all a big family of collaborating projects.
> >
> >So, again, while I fully appreciate your code donation, I'd like to
> >kindly invite you to rethink about your licensing issues now that you
> >know these things.
> >
> >Thank you very much.
> >
> >--
> >Stefano Mazzocchi      One must still have chaos in oneself to be
> >                           able to give birth to a dancing star.
> ><st...@apache.org>                             Friedrich Nietzsche
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> >  Missed us in Orlando? Make it up with ApacheCON Europe in London!
> >------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------