To Sum from all I like to purpose following
1) Lets have that final boolean enable removing the code that has
dependancy in the compile time
2) Inside the block we will do reflection and and check for the
classes if they are missing use code that do not do MTOM.
I like to purpose to make OMOutput a interface and put a factory that
pick the MTOM dependent or independent OMOutput impl accordingly. And
do the same for OMCharacter if needed.
Thanks
Srinath
On 6/28/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
> dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
>
> Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
> that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
> doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
> switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
>
> class OmOutput {
> private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
>
> ..
> }
>
> now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
> SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
>
> s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
>
> BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
> belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
>
> Sanjiva.
>
> On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> > Hi All;
> >
> > After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
> >
> > 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> > 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
> >
> > that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> > mail jar for normal execution.
> >
> > Is that Accceptable?
> >
> > If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> > fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
> >
> > What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> > for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Srinath
> >
>
>
