> Daniel Sadolevsky wrote:
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
> > Second IMHO pluggable commands do not provide any real avantages but
>
> > makes only more complex changes and debugging. Since the protocol is
>
> > well defined I far prefere a simple hardcoded class implementing all
>
> > commands than spagetti coding.
> > If we'll decide to implements some ESMTP commands we'll write an
> > ESMPTHandler supporting specific commands. If I need to extend
> support
> > to a new command it's far more easy modify update the class
> > than adding
> > a new command.
> >
> > That's way I'm planning to roll back to the old SMTP handler, fix
> and
> > update it if necessary and add the LocalInbox feature. I've
> > worked a bit
> > on the Store interface and IMO it's ready to support local users and
>
> > inbox for local delivery throught POP3.
> >
> > If everybody agree I'll do the job.
> Not that my opinion matters, but you read my mind :-)
Your opinion matters like everybody's else... plus, I agree with
Federico.
Guys, we need something that works, otherwise, nobody will jump in and
help and this project (with all the good ideas it contains) will be
doomed forever.
So, +1 to Federico's changes.
--
Stefano Mazzocchi One must still have chaos in oneself to be
able to give birth to a dancing star.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Friedrich Nietzsche
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Come to the first official Apache Software Foundation Conference!
------------------------- http://ApacheCon.Com ---------------------
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
