You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to server-dev@james.apache.org by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com> on 2004/04/08 00:30:04 UTC
AbstractRedirect w/ passThrough = false
In AbstractRedirect, we have (casts removed):
newMail = originalMail.duplicate(newName(originalMail));
Seems to me that if passThrough is false, we can use the same name, and not
create a new one. Anyone disagree? Vincenzo, your thoughts?
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: AbstractRedirect w/ passThrough = false
Posted by "Noel J. Bergman" <no...@devtech.com>.
> Looking at the code, I think that you're right, but ... why did we
> do it that way at the time? So many months have passed, so it's
> difficult to remember.
Not sure. I went back to look at the code before we did AbstractRedirect,
and we had code like:
reply = getPassThrough() ? new MimeMessage(message) : message;
but that is equivalent to some code already in AbstractRedirect.service().
The old code posted a message, rather than a Mail object, so it would have
always created a new instance.
While you're looking at the code, see if you agree that we might be able to
further optimize behavior in the case where we are only changing the
envelope (Mail instance), and not touching the message.
--- Noel
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
RE: AbstractRedirect w/ passThrough = false
Posted by Vincenzo Gianferrari Pini <vi...@praxis.it>.
Noel,
Looking at the code, I think that you're right, but ... why did we do it that way at the time? So many months have passed, so it's difficult to remember.
Let's think on it for a few days, and if next monday nothing against it arises I'll do, test and commit the small code change.
Vincenzo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Noel J. Bergman [mailto:noel@devtech.com]
> Sent: giovedi 8 aprile 2004 0.30
> To: James-Dev Mailing List
> Subject: AbstractRedirect w/ passThrough = false
>
>
> In AbstractRedirect, we have (casts removed):
>
> newMail = originalMail.duplicate(newName(originalMail));
>
> Seems to me that if passThrough is false, we can use the same name, and not
> create a new one. Anyone disagree? Vincenzo, your thoughts?
>
> --- Noel
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org