On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 3:03 PM, jdrewsen <jdrew...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Den 19-06-2011 17:57, Jimmy Cao skrev: > >> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 5:29 AM, jdrewsen <jdrew...@nospam.com >> >> <mailto:jdrew...@nospam.com>> wrote: >> >> Very nice. A couple of things I believe would help: >> 1, Get rid of MailMessageData and use curl.onSend() and a delegate >> that keeps a reference to the message. That way you don't have to >> use the lower level Curl.set(infile/readfunction) calls as well. >> >> >> Ah, that makes it much better. >> >> 2, It would be nice if the static sendMail(...) function worked like >> the Http/Ftp counterparts. They return a Result object that you can >> change before performing the actual task. That way you can easily >> set timeouts etc. If there shouldn't be support for async smtp then >> this is probably not important though. >> >> >> There should be support for async SMTP. >> The problem is this: >> SMTP.sendMailAsync(...).**connectTimeout(dur!"seconds"(** >> 60)).localPort(25).? >> >> byLine, byChunk, etc don't make much sense there. >> >> I think it would be better to get rid of the static sendMail function, >> and write a performAsync method. >> I'm not sure though. >> Something like this: >> https://gist.github.com/**1034433 <https://gist.github.com/1034433> >> > > Maybe i doesn't make sense to provide the async interface at all? Users > needing to do it async could just as well create a delegate and call spawn > themselves. > > /Jonas > Yep. I think there isn't a need for a static convenience function either.
