Daniel Sadolevsky wrote:
>
> > I'm starting to lose my religion on these ultra-generic repositories.
> > ...
> Well, the generic repositories still can be useful as building blocks
> of your "specific" mail repositories.
Yeah, true.
> > Another thing on the message object primary key...
> I'm probably just being stupid here, but can you please explain to me
> why do we need this key at all? Maybe if we implement "specific" mail
> repositories, the need for having a message key would vanish? (No longer
> we would be needing it for connecting between message bodies and envelope
> info at least ...)
Well, how do you access objects in your pool? Usually you have a
getHash () method or something like that so you can keep a reference to
that object in the pool. One of our goals was to support "partially"
loading ServerMimeMessages, whereby you could access all the header
information, but only load the body content if you really needed it.
This would allow for much faster processing of messages with much less
memory usage.
The repository we had in mind was a Hashtable/Dictionary approach to
object storage. I guess you could write a Vector approach where you
didn't have a key, but that introduced an ordering, which seemed beyond
what we were trying to do initially. We were also trying to stay away
from 1.2 for now.
Serge Knystautas
Loki Technologies
http://www.lokitech.com/
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
