For my mine nothing, but I guess that largely depends on you. The
only outstanding bugs at the moment are related to the tests and
exceptions that you raised. If you want to put these in 1.0 then that
should just about do it.
The site looks like it is under control now, good job guys, so I cant
see anything else outstanding.
Maybe we should start a RC1 thread?
-Corey
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:38:15 +0100, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What needs to be done for 1.0 then? Give me a list and i'll put some
> time aside to pitch in.
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:35:48 +0800, Corey Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Definately something we should add to our discussion list once 1.0 is
> > out of the way.
> >
> > -Corey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:32:28 +0100, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I'll put the exception tests in with the the others, when its all in.
> > > I left most the tests untouched anyhow just testing for EmailException
> > > rather than MessagingException. Once EmailException is in the head
> > > version I'll start thinking about AddressException.
> > >
> > > Has the issue of bulk mailing comeup before? I'm thinking of a class
> > > that extends thread and then sends a email report to a specified email
> > > address reporting which have been sent and those that haven't. Does
> > > this fall within the scope of commons email? Email could even extend
> > > thread and then just use the run method when needing to mail to lots
> > > of folk.. This would be handy for webapps where the time it takes to
> > > send mail exceeds the time for the request-reponse cycle.
> > >
> > > HtmlEmail email = ..
> > > ..
> > > email.batchMail();
> > >
> > > public void batchMail() {
> > > this.run();
> > > }
> > >
> > > public void run() {
> > > try {
> > > send();
> > > } catch (SomeExceptionn e) {
> > >
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > Or would something else be a better idea? Perhaps a separate class
> > > EmailSender or something?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark
> > >
> > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:38:30 +0800, Corey Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Sounds good to me, I have a stack of things waiting for the next
> > > > version.
> > > > Also I think most of the bugs have been cleared off by your recent
> > > > commits so there shouldnt be any reason to stop us from a RC1
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > -Corey
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:01:00 +0100, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > I've applied a stack of changes, including Mark's EmailException, to
> > > > > the
> > > > > codebase. I don't really care much about how the unit tests look,
> > > > > as long
> > > > > as the jcoverage keeps going up!
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, I think all the API changes are done, and my gut
> > > > > feeling is
> > > > > that we should look to final testing, cut a Release Candidate and
> > > > > then roll
> > > > > 1.0. We should also start thinking about what the next version will
> > > > > entail.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Eric
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:25 PM
> > > > > > To: Corey Scott
> > > > > > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [email] Exceptions
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Okay I'll take a look tommorrow and sumbit my patch with the test
> > > > > > cases in with the Other test methods.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Judging from you example, you agree that unexpected exceptions
> > > > > > should
> > > > > > just get thrown and that exceptions should be tested independently
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > normal tests, which all sounds good to me. Or am i wrong? If the
> > > > > > method isn't there to invoke an exception then if one happens then
> > > > > > surely just throw it, the fact that its unexpected will be evident
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > virtue of the test failing due to errors.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Mark
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:04:16 +0800, Corey Scott
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > This is exactly what I was trying to say, just not so elegantly
> > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eg. Tests for the HtmlEmail class should be in teh HtmlEmailTest
> > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > or is this becomes too big and you want to separate the
> > > > > > > exceptions,
> > > > > > > then there should be two classes HtmlEmailTest (for normal test
> > > > > > > cases)
> > > > > > > and HtmlEmailExceptionTest
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > -Corey
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:59:29 +0100, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > Humm... I typically make all my unit tests throw Exception.
> > > > > > It reduces
> > > > > > > > the length of each test, especially when all you are doing is
> > > > > > logging that
> > > > > > > > it failed with a fail(ex.getMessage).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > However, if you are actually TESTING that an exception gets
> > > > > > > > thrown:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > try {
> > > > > > > > email.doSomething();
> > > > > > > > fail("should have thrown ee");
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > catch (EmailException ee){
> > > > > > > > assertTrue(ee.getMessage().indexOf("myerror")>-1)
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > then I argue they should go in with whatever class we are
> > > > > > testing, because
> > > > > > > > when someone adds a new method to the class, it will
> > > > > > encourage them to add
> > > > > > > > the corresponding test case for any exeption. Or, put the
> > > > > > exception test
> > > > > > > > into the test.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > public void testSomething() throws Exception{
> > > > > > > > email.doSomethign();
> > > > > > > > <snip/>
> > > > > > > > try {
> > > > > > > > email.doSomething();
> > > > > > > > fail("should have thrown ee");
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > catch (EmailException ee){
> > > > > > > > assertTrue(ee.getMessage().indexOf("myerror")>-1)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That way everything stays together. If we aren't actually
> > > > > > asserting the
> > > > > > > > exception, then we shouldn't bother testing it..
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:19 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: Corey Scott
> > > > > > > > > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [email] Exceptions
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > My thoughts on the test cases are that they should throw
> > > > > > > > > exception,
> > > > > > > > > and then have the exception testing separate. This would make
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > cases shorter also, perhaps this is what you mean.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > public void testFoo() throws Exception
> > > > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > > > Foo foo = new Foo();
> > > > > > > > > foo.setBar("testvar");
> > > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > For example, if for some reason the exception for setBar()
> > > > > > > > > was ever
> > > > > > > > > changed the case could remain the same as before, and the
> > > > > > only change
> > > > > > > > > would need to be in the exception test case.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:59:44 +0800, Corey Scott
> > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > I would prefer an Exception Test case per base class,
> > > > > > especially for
> > > > > > > > > > the larger files. I know most of the tests I wrote, but
> > > > > > I think that
> > > > > > > > > > if anything the files are too long and would be much more
> > > > > > usable if
> > > > > > > > > > they were shorter and more focused. Does anyone have any
> > > > > > objections
> > > > > > > > > > to gave more (but shorter) files?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > -Corey
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:17:30 +0100, Mark Lowe
> > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > I've created the exceptions and I'm now working through
> > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > test cases.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If I summit a patch with the exception testing in a
> > > > > > ExceptionTestCase
> > > > > > > > > > > what's the likelyhood of this being patched? This isn't
> > > > > > a question of
> > > > > > > > > > > style its a question of maintainabilty and now, I'm
> > > > > > faced with the
> > > > > > > > > > > task of weeding out all these try catch statements.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Any objection to a patch with these exception tests moved
> > > > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > > > specialised test case?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:23:50 +0100, Mark Lowe
> > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Okay 2 commons.mail exceptions sounds like an
> > > > > > > > > > > > improvement.
> > > > > > > > > So the goal
> > > > > > > > > > > > is to minimise the catch statements the user needs to
> > > > > > use, sound
> > > > > > > > > > > > reasonable. Throwing everything would mean 2 catches,
> > > > > > > > > > > > so I
> > > > > > > > > can see the
> > > > > > > > > > > > value in catching once.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'll look into a way of having a 1.4+ build option in
> > > > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > build files
> > > > > > > > > > > > for folk that don't give a gnat's winnit about 1.3 et
> > > > > > > > > > > > al.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Anyone know the default behaviour for the
> > > > > > > > > InternetAddress(email,name)
> > > > > > > > > > > > constructor? Does it adopt the charset from the parent
> > > > > > > > > > > > email?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:11:06 +0100, Eric Pugh
> > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > My take on this is that users of [email] are looking
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > a package that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > simplifies the JavaMail api. And one of the big
> > > > > > > > > simplifing aspects is that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Exceptions that they have to catch are minimized.
> > > > > > > > > Most users will
> > > > > > > > > > > > > probably not care *what* the exception was, only that
> > > > > > > > > there *was* an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception, and just pass it up the chain. For folks
> > > > > > > > > > > > > who
> > > > > > > > > actually have code
> > > > > > > > > > > > > to deal with the specific exception, then they are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > either
> > > > > > > > > going to use the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JavaMail api directly without the extra layer of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > [email],
> > > > > > > > > or we should
> > > > > > > > > > > > > provide a way for them to retrieve the specific
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hence that is why I propose that we have two types
> > > > > > of exceptions:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > EmailException and RuntimeEmailException. For common
> > > > > > > > > exceptions, we throw
> > > > > > > > > > > > > an EmailException which is an extension of
> > > > > > > > > NestableException and wraps
> > > > > > > > > > > > > whatever the underlying JavaMail exception was. This
> > > > > > > > > provides a nice facade
> > > > > > > > > > > > > for people who don't care what the exception was, but
> > > > > > > > > allows folks who do to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > get the underlying exception.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The other RuntimeEmailException will extend
> > > > > > > > > NestableRuntimeException and can
> > > > > > > > > > > > > be used for any runtime exceptions in the same manner
> > > > > > > > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > EmailException.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > For the case of the UEE, that would be another
> > > > > > > > > > > > > exception
> > > > > > > > > in the API to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > throw, which goes against the charter that:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "contains a set of Java classes providing a thin
> > > > > > > > > convenience layer over
> > > > > > > > > > > > > JavaMail". So, in that case, throw the approapriate
> > > > > > > > > EmailException and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > that will wrap the UEE.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark, is it possible to use the 1.4 io stuff
> > > > > > > > > conditionally? I guess not,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > but we could think about maybe how we compile the jar?
> > > > > > > > > Our primary target
> > > > > > > > > > > > > is definitly 1.3 for now though.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:04 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To: Commons dev list; Corey Scott
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [email] Exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The issue of exceptions has come up a few times, and
> > > > > > > > > heres a summary
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > of my understanding of whats been said and agreed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > disagreed about.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of throwing AddressException is favourable,
> > > > > > > > > but not at the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > cost of needing to throw
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > UnsupportingEncodingException.
> > > > > > > > > When setting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > InternetAddress() this throws a UEE and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > AddressException.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that without 1.4's new io package
> > > > > > > > > there's no means of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > checking supported charsets on a given JVM. If the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > user
> > > > > > > > > enters a shady
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > charset for a email address or name is there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > wrong with them
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > having a UEE thrown?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > The lightest means of doing this in my opinion is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > just
> > > > > > > > > throw both, its
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > consistent with the mailapi. It would work on all
> > > > > > target JVMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you could just throw MessagingException
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > everything , "oh
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > thats what it does". But is this a useful and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > therefore
> > > > > > > > > good thing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Having a commons.mail.EmailException was suggested,
> > > > > > > > > but does that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have any advantage over throwing AddressException
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > UEE? I'm not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't mind summitting the patches, i need to do
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > for a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on at present, so I need to do the work
> > > > > > > > > anyway. It makes
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > sense to submit this to the effort but I don't
> > > > > > mind either way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
