You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@geronimo.apache.org by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu> on 2006/07/31 00:34:59 UTC
Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the JavaMail module
by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP server, but
it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the module too
(e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
What do you think?
Thanks,
Aaron
Re: Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> Starting it is fine but it does require some customization as Aaron
> pointed out. Will the start be graceful enough that users will know
> that they need to customize it? Perhaps a WARNING message issues at
> startup if it hasn't been configured would be nice.
>
> Rick McGuire wrote:
>> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the JavaMail module
>>> by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP server, but
>>> it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the module too
>>> (e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
>>> load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
>> I think this is probably a good idea. Most of the problems I've seen
>> with users attempting to use javamail have been caused by the fact
>> the javamail module has not been started. This usually manifests as
>> a provider resolution failure because the transport jars are not
>> showing up in the classpath. Because the spec jars ARE there by
>> default, this error doesn't show up until it is used.
Well, it sort of requires customization. One way to use it is to
request the javamail resource, then request a transport object from the
resource. In that mode, yes, customization is required. However, most
of the questions I've been seeing from the user list involved people who
just wish to use the javamail APIs directly. They don't require the
configured javamail resource, just a full set of javamail jars. Since
the provider jars don't get pulled in unless the javamail config is
loaded, the smtp provider can't be located. These users are required to
make a config change just to get the jar files loaded. We could satisfy
the needs of these users by redoing the dependencies a bit and
decoupling the providers from the mail config.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Aaron
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
Posted by Dain Sundstrom <da...@iq80.com>.
+1
-dain
On Aug 9, 2006, at 10:04 AM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
> sounds good to me
>
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> On 8/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>>> Starting it is fine but it does require some customization as
>>> Aaron pointed out. Will the start be
>>> graceful enough that users will know that they need to customize
>>> it? Perhaps a WARNING message
>>> issues at startup if it hasn't been configured would be nice.
>> It doesn't always need to be configured even if you're using it as a
>> J2EE resource -- many Linux boxes come with an MTA already
>> running, so
>> the default mail server of localhost may be perfectly reasonable.
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>> Rick McGuire wrote:
>>> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
>>> >> I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the
>>> JavaMail module
>>> >> by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP
>>> server, but
>>> >> it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the
>>> module too
>>> >> (e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
>>> >> load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
>>> > I think this is probably a good idea. Most of the problems
>>> I've seen
>>> > with users attempting to use javamail have been caused by the
>>> fact the
>>> > javamail module has not been started. This usually manifests as a
>>> > provider resolution failure because the transport jars are not
>>> showing
>>> > up in the classpath. Because the spec jars ARE there by
>>> default, this
>>> > error doesn't show up until it is used.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> What do you think?
>>> >>
>>> >> Thanks,
>>> >> Aaron
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
Re: Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
sounds good to me
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> On 8/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
>> Starting it is fine but it does require some customization as Aaron
>> pointed out. Will the start be
>> graceful enough that users will know that they need to customize it?
>> Perhaps a WARNING message
>> issues at startup if it hasn't been configured would be nice.
>
> It doesn't always need to be configured even if you're using it as a
> J2EE resource -- many Linux boxes come with an MTA already running, so
> the default mail server of localhost may be perfectly reasonable.
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>
>> Rick McGuire wrote:
>> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> >> I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the JavaMail module
>> >> by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP server, but
>> >> it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the module too
>> >> (e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
>> >> load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
>> > I think this is probably a good idea. Most of the problems I've seen
>> > with users attempting to use javamail have been caused by the fact the
>> > javamail module has not been started. This usually manifests as a
>> > provider resolution failure because the transport jars are not showing
>> > up in the classpath. Because the spec jars ARE there by default, this
>> > error doesn't show up until it is used.
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> What do you think?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks,
>> >> Aaron
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
>
Re: Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
Posted by Aaron Mulder <am...@alumni.princeton.edu>.
On 8/9/06, Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org> wrote:
> Starting it is fine but it does require some customization as Aaron pointed out. Will the start be
> graceful enough that users will know that they need to customize it? Perhaps a WARNING message
> issues at startup if it hasn't been configured would be nice.
It doesn't always need to be configured even if you're using it as a
J2EE resource -- many Linux boxes come with an MTA already running, so
the default mail server of localhost may be perfectly reasonable.
Thanks,
Aaron
> Rick McGuire wrote:
> > Aaron Mulder wrote:
> >> I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the JavaMail module
> >> by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP server, but
> >> it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the module too
> >> (e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
> >> load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
> > I think this is probably a good idea. Most of the problems I've seen
> > with users attempting to use javamail have been caused by the fact the
> > javamail module has not been started. This usually manifests as a
> > provider resolution failure because the transport jars are not showing
> > up in the classpath. Because the spec jars ARE there by default, this
> > error doesn't show up until it is used.
> >
> >
> >>
> >> What do you think?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Aaron
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
Posted by Matt Hogstrom <ma...@hogstrom.org>.
Starting it is fine but it does require some customization as Aaron pointed out. Will the start be
graceful enough that users will know that they need to customize it? Perhaps a WARNING message
issues at startup if it hasn't been configured would be nice.
Rick McGuire wrote:
> Aaron Mulder wrote:
>> I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the JavaMail module
>> by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP server, but
>> it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the module too
>> (e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
>> load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
> I think this is probably a good idea. Most of the problems I've seen
> with users attempting to use javamail have been caused by the fact the
> javamail module has not been started. This usually manifests as a
> provider resolution failure because the transport jars are not showing
> up in the classpath. Because the spec jars ARE there by default, this
> error doesn't show up until it is used.
>
>
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Aaron
>>
>
>
>
>
Re: Start JavaMail by default in 1.1.1?
Posted by Rick McGuire <ri...@gmail.com>.
Aaron Mulder wrote:
> I don't see a great reason that we're not starting the JavaMail module
> by default. Granted, the user may need to change the SMTP server, but
> it's going to be easier if they don't need to enable the module too
> (e.g. the console usually doesn't see disabled GBeans, and the
> load=false is easy enough to miss in config.xml).
I think this is probably a good idea. Most of the problems I've seen
with users attempting to use javamail have been caused by the fact the
javamail module has not been started. This usually manifests as a
provider resolution failure because the transport jars are not showing
up in the classpath. Because the spec jars ARE there by default, this
error doesn't show up until it is used.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Thanks,
> Aaron
>