Stefano Mazzocchi wrote:
> Yes. Otherwise, if you don't, there is no way you can "componentize"
> your pipeline without having to touch (or worse, recompile) your
> components.
I'm leaning against putting it in the conf file as a mailet will either
be the kind that filters a message (adds a header, etc...) or receives
the message (autoresponder, etc...). This doesn't seem like something
to put in the conf file to change.
> If the mailet is able to modify the Mail object, then it must return it,
> no question about it.
>
> A mailet is a filter, and every filter works like this
>
> Object filter(Object object)
>
> I don't understand why you are against this, I'm probably missing your
> point.
The problem I see is people writing autoresponders (creating a new
message to send out) might create a new instance of Mail (for the
response) and return that instead of the original Mail object. I
consider this a serious problem because 1) I don't think you should be
able to insert a Mail message midway through processing and 2) people
start thinking the API should support returning multiple Mail objects.
I think new Mail objects should be sent through a different part of the
API. You are passed an Object... you filter it... that's all... the
calling method already has a reference to that object... why do you have
to insult it's intelligence by returning it. ;)
> I do think so, even if you guys didn't yet comment my latest DTD
> proposal...
I must have missed the message... can you send the latest around?
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]
