Federico Barbieri wrote:
> Agree. I spent lot of time thinking about it and I realize that even if I
> don't like some javax stuff, the whole package is good and it's not woth
> recode everything.
> First JAMES release will use javax.mail implementaton. Then we can take some
> time to optimize implementation as smart as we need and (that's the
> important point) javax.mail "interfaces" are not limited from this point of
> view. This means we can make them as fast as we want.
>
> So except for a name chage (MessageContainer to Mail) I think we are already
> on the right path.
>
> Agree on naming?
+1
(putting our conversations back on the mailing list so we have
documentation of some of the design decisions we've made)
Serge
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
