Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
>
> On 4/22/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > My concern wasn't really related to size. It was with
> creating a dependency
> > on a new and cool but not yet widely used API. In the same
> way as others
> > have expressed concern that we should not jump 'out
On 4/22/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My concern wasn't really related to size. It was with creating a dependency
> on a new and cool but not yet widely used API. In the same way as others
> have expressed concern that we should not jump 'out of the fire in to the
> frying pan' [old
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>
> Serge Knystautas wrote:
> > On 4/20/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Serge Knystautas wrote:
> >>> Guys,
> >>>
> >>> I was going to commit this, but wanted to run it by you
> just since it
> >>> introduces another dependency.
> >> Ugh! Surely this is an op
Serge Knystautas wrote:
On 4/21/06, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Why don't we simply put the mailet in the Jar and import the package in
config.xml ?
A mailet already is a class that handle a mail and could be able to send
the message to remote service.
Serge Knystautas wrote:
On 4/20/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Serge Knystautas wrote:
Guys,
I was going to commit this, but wanted to run it by you just since it
introduces another dependency.
Ugh! Surely this is an optional feature. If people want to use it only then
should the
Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
>
> On 4/20/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Serge Knystautas wrote:
> > >
> > > Guys,
> > >
> > > I was going to commit this, but wanted to run it by you
> just since it
> > > introduces another dependency.
> >
> > Ugh! Surely this is an optional feature
On 4/21/06, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> > Why don't we simply put the mailet in the Jar and import the package in
> > config.xml ?
> >
> > A mailet already is a class that handle a mail and could be able to send
> > the message to remote service.
>
> one h
On 4/20/06, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Serge Knystautas wrote:
> >
> > Guys,
> >
> > I was going to commit this, but wanted to run it by you just since it
> > introduces another dependency.
>
> Ugh! Surely this is an optional feature. If people want to use it only then
> should they
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Why don't we simply put the mailet in the Jar and import the package in
config.xml ?
A mailet already is a class that handle a mail and could be able to send
the message to remote service.
one has to write a new mailet for each remote service type.
if this mailet is in
Why don't we simply put the mailet in the Jar and import the package in
config.xml ?
A mailet already is a class that handle a mail and could be able to send
the message to remote service.
Maybe we should support fully qualified class names in the class
attribute for our mailets in config.xm
Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> I was going to commit this, but wanted to run it by you just since it
> introduces another dependency.
Ugh! Surely this is an optional feature. If people want to use it only then
should they need to add the dependencies.
If and when we move to OSGi, choosing
On 4/20/06, Bernd Fondermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> interesting aspect to have a RPC-mailet. maybe this could be done with a
> more generic approach: a mailet which takes as configuration parameters
> a. a jar (hessian.jar, activemq.jar, whatever is neccessary) which it
> loads on its own
> a
interesting aspect to have a RPC-mailet. maybe this could be done with a
more generic approach: a mailet which takes as configuration parameters
a. a jar (hessian.jar, activemq.jar, whatever is neccessary) which it
loads on its own
and
b. a class contained within the jar which is instantiated by
On 4/19/06, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > it introduces another dependency.
>
> I'd rather not introduce that dependency. HOWEVER, we have been talking
> about the fact that we have much better support for multiple Mailet
> packages, and I would be +1 to add this to an OPTIONAL ma
Serge Knystautas wrote:
> I was going to commit this
-1, please, because:
> it introduces another dependency.
I'd rather not introduce that dependency. HOWEVER, we have been talking
about the fact that we have much better support for multiple Mailet
packages, and I would be +1 to add this to a
15 matches
Mail list logo
