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 Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com> on 2008/04/24 22:08:43 UTC
What would be in base? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Introduce mailet-base product]
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
<snip>
> I would have preferred to vote on the actual classes to be moved there,
> because I agree that mailet-base is needed, but I don't know if we agree on
> what to move there ;-)
i don't see the point arguing about details unless the principle is
agreed. there's no real reason to vote on contents anyway: should be
able to reach a reasonable consensus
> IMO Generic*, RFC2822Headers and the "dates" package should be moved there.
+1
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: What would be in base? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Introduce mailet-base
product]
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> the question is how much toolkit is worthwhile moving in as well. it
>>> would be better if standard mailets were just a runtime dependency.
>>> this would mean moving some abstract implementations into base:
>>>
>>> AbstractQuotaMatcher
>>> AbstractAddFooter
>>>
>>> this would mean subtly changing base from pure utilities into
>>> something a little more like a mailet-building toolkit.
>>>
>>> opinions?
>>>
>> I'm a little against moving the 2 Abstract classes to mailet-base.
>
> reasons?
It is difficult to explain. Take it as a personal taste/feeling ;-)
I wrote "a little" because of this, otherwise I would have had a much
stronger opinion!
IMHO they are not generic/good/flexible enough to be part of a
toolkit/utility library.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: What would be in base? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Introduce mailet-base product]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:46 AM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
<snip>
> > the question is how much toolkit is worthwhile moving in as well. it
> > would be better if standard mailets were just a runtime dependency.
> > this would mean moving some abstract implementations into base:
> >
> > AbstractQuotaMatcher
> > AbstractAddFooter
> >
> > this would mean subtly changing base from pure utilities into
> > something a little more like a mailet-building toolkit.
> >
> > opinions?
> >
>
> I'm a little against moving the 2 Abstract classes to mailet-base.
reasons?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: What would be in base? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Introduce mailet-base
product]
Posted by Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org>.
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
> <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > I would have preferred to vote on the actual classes to be moved there,
>> > because I agree that mailet-base is needed, but I don't know if we agree on
>> > what to move there ;-)
>>
>> i don't see the point arguing about details unless the principle is
>> agreed. there's no real reason to vote on contents anyway: should be
>> able to reach a reasonable consensus
>>
>> > IMO Generic*, RFC2822Headers and the "dates" package should be moved there.
>>
>> +1
>
> might also move org.apache.james.util.mailet.* from server
+1
> the question is how much toolkit is worthwhile moving in as well. it
> would be better if standard mailets were just a runtime dependency.
> this would mean moving some abstract implementations into base:
>
> AbstractQuotaMatcher
> AbstractAddFooter
>
> this would mean subtly changing base from pure utilities into
> something a little more like a mailet-building toolkit.
>
> opinions?
I'm a little against moving the 2 Abstract classes to mailet-base.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
Re: What would be in base? [WAS Re: [VOTE] Introduce mailet-base product]
Posted by Robert Burrell Donkin <ro...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 9:08 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 8:28 PM, Stefano Bagnara <ap...@bago.org> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > I would have preferred to vote on the actual classes to be moved there,
> > because I agree that mailet-base is needed, but I don't know if we agree on
> > what to move there ;-)
>
> i don't see the point arguing about details unless the principle is
> agreed. there's no real reason to vote on contents anyway: should be
> able to reach a reasonable consensus
>
> > IMO Generic*, RFC2822Headers and the "dates" package should be moved there.
>
> +1
might also move org.apache.james.util.mailet.* from server
the question is how much toolkit is worthwhile moving in as well. it
would be better if standard mailets were just a runtime dependency.
this would mean moving some abstract implementations into base:
AbstractQuotaMatcher
AbstractAddFooter
this would mean subtly changing base from pure utilities into
something a little more like a mailet-building toolkit.
opinions?
- robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org