> (b) "The easiest workaround is to not change the subject, if not > necessary." > > AbstractRedirect is in the process of being changed, as you know. It has > been setting values where there is no request to change a value, which is > redundant since we've already started with a clone. Vincenzo has already > changed some of that, and is still looking at the code to complete that > change. Your example, that if both <prefix> and <subject> are null, then > there is no need to touch the subject header, is a good one. > > > I noticed that AbstractRedirect does use the empty string to indicate > > that no prefix was supplied. Shouldn't we change that to null, it > > seems to me that usually null is used in James for this?
Done (Joszef thank you for the suggestion). > > I haven't looked at the original code, but the "" was probably for > convenience since "" + subject would always be a valid operation. I agree > with you that null for no change is probably the better choice, and > consistent with the newly recognized convention. Yes, if I recall well it was in the original code, but a lot of code has "passed under the bridges" since then :-). I still have to test my last changes, and will commit probably tomorrow. Vincenzo --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
