On Oct 25, 3:22 pm, Russell Keith-Magee <freakboy3...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > The v1.2 votes are in, and it appears that Email-01 (introducing an > email backend API) needs some more discussion. > > I am in complete agreement that Django shouldn't try to become an > email framework. That isn't the intention of this proposal. > > The intention is to fix a specific problem that exists for supporting > sandboxed deployment environments, and AppEngine in particular. > > AppEngine doesn't provide an SMTP server - the AppEngine sandbox > provides a specific API for sending email, rather than the standard > Python mail API. This is a problem because because Django provides an > API for sending email - and uses that API internally: > > * contrib.auth sends mail as part of the password reset process > * contrib.comments sends mail as part of the comment moderation process > * the 500 handler sends mail to site admins > * the CommonMiddleware sends mail on broken links to site managers > > If we're going to fully support AppEngine (and any other sandboxed > deployment platform), we need to provide a way to direct Django's > email APIs to APIs provided by a sandbox. > > As a side effect, providing email an backend API cleans up a few other > minor lingering issues: > > - It cleans up the monkeypatching required by the test framework, > since emails can be easily redirected to an in-memory backend during > test execution. > > - It provides an easy way to debug email sending on the development > server. An 'email test server' was proposed - and ultimately rejected > - for v1.1. A 'console' email backend resolves this problem by > providing a way to direct email to stdout, rather than SMTP. > > - It provides an elegant entry point for tools like django-mailer. > The email backend API would allow django-mailer to become a specialist > external email backend. This allows for greater decoupling: apps can > just call the Django mail api, rather than needing to specifically > provide django-mailer support. > > I felt an email backend API would be an elegant way to gain a lot of > flexibility, with essentially no impact for existing users. The > original django-dev discussion [1] didn't raise much dissent - but the > voting process has shown that there is obviously some disagreement. > > I'm keen to see a resolution to this problem. To that end, I'm > interested in hearing specific criticisms or concerns with the current > backend proposal. I'm also interested in any alternate approaches to > this problem. > > [1]http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread...
I'm still keen to see a resolution to this problem. Can anyone - especially those that voted -0 or -1 - offer any feedback? Yours, Russ Magee %-) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Django developers" group. To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
