Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Charles Benett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > Yes, I think we should be close. I suggest we go for feature freeze
> > soon, then allow a few days for testing (bug fixes only) before release.
> > Thoughts?
>
> Thanks for cleaning up the bumps. I'm glad Stuart is testing the build
> process as a new user as it's giving good feedback (which I'll try to
> incorporate into some docs for those building from CVS).
Agreed.
I'm going to
> continue testing the exception handling in the processor tonight... I'm
> planning to put JAMES 1.2 in place of our existing incoming mail server
> tonight (hopefully), so I want to be sure that even if something in JAMES
> dies, it continues to receive messages.
>
> How about Wednesday we branch for the 1.2 release
I don't think we need to make a branch in cvs. Once we agree the
distribution, we should tag cvs. Then, if we need to branch or reverse
it should be easy.
and start packaging up a
> distribution (assuming you have no problems with LDAP tomorrow). I'll work
> on the documentation more tonight and tomorrow. Hopefully we'll have it
> pretty easy to use, and then can announce it to a bunch of java sites.
>
In RemoteDelivery, can we replace the call to t.stop() with
t.interrupt() and change the condition loop in run() to (true && !
Thread.interrupted())? I'm not a wiz on threading (yet), but stop() is
decried in all my books.
In general, I think we should avoid deprecated methods. The other one we
currently have is in SmtpHandler, but I haven't thought of a way around
that, yet.
Charles
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives: <http://www.mail-archive.com/james%40list.working-dogs.com/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
