On Mon, 2004-05-24 at 22:16, Not Zed wrote: [snip] > > > > > > Agreed, but another api is still needed for cross posting. > > > > yea, I suppose it would. What if NNTP just implemented the Transport > > interfaces? > > Well they're really only for sending to rfc822 addresses I guess. > i.e. how are we going to route the right addresses to the right > transport?
good point... I suppose that as a hack, we could just use an empty list of recipients for NNTP (no To/Cc/Bcc) and let the NNTP transport extract the Newsgroups header itself to figure out where it needs to go. this isn't a a beautiful solution tho :( > > I guess its an idea though, but the proposed interface isn't really > much more than having the same interface on a store. > > I don't think this would make sense unless we just got rid of > CamelTransport entirely and just having it as virtual methods and > capability bits on CamelStore? I'm not really following why we need to merge the 2 objects. of course, it's late and I'm tired so maybe I'm just not seeing the obvious :-) > Could this simplify the store is also a transport issue?(or if we > had interfaces on camelobjects and did it that way instead). Well, it'd likely reduce the boilerplate code. I'm not really sure how else it would simplify anything tho... Jeff _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
