> > IMHO the DEFAULT behaviour should be the deep copy.
>
> I disagree, what we're trying to do is to manage routing the message.
>
> Message can be routed down two different routes to its
> destination, but is still the same message.
-1 on that!
James developers already did mistakes due to mim
> IMHO the DEFAULT behaviour should be the deep copy.
I disagree, what we're trying to do is to manage routing the message.
Message can be routed down two different routes to its destination, but is
still the same message.
The default should be the least resource intensive.
In fact I would tend
> This is the usual deep versus shallow copy discussion, and
> actually both methods make sense for different purposes.
> I think we should provide a deep-duplicate or such method, as
> there might be someone out there, who has coded against the
> shallow copy behaviour.
IMHO the DEFAULT behav
This is the usual deep versus shallow copy discussion, and actually both
methods make sense for different purposes.
I think we should provide a deep-duplicate or such method, as there might be
someone out there, who has coded against the shallow copy behaviour.
--Søren
On Friday 09 September 2
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-421?page=comments#action_12323006 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on JAMES-421:
---
Here is what it happens in my test:
I send a mail "mail1" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED] and "original
body" body.
Th
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-421?page=comments#action_12323003 ]
Stefano Bagnara commented on JAMES-421:
---
It doesn't matter what Mail is supposed to do: if this is not a bug in MailImpl
it is a bug in LinearProcessor!
And a critical on
[
http://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JAMES-421?page=comments#action_12322983 ]
Noel J. Bergman commented on JAMES-421:
---
Mail objects are just addressing carriers for the message. They are not
supposed to clone the message, since we may simply be ef
