On Wednesday 05 November 2003 16:33, Noel J. Bergman wrote: > We have to support what we release as a public interface. In some cases, > the code as it exists may not be what we want to support, and that is > another reason for why it isn't exposed.
I can see your point on what we expose we need to support. But IMO people messing at this level needs to have a certain level of competance anyway, eg. they need to have understood the inner workings of the mailet/matcher they are extending. This initiative is just to lend those developers a helping hand. > > In the specific case of the RemoteDelivery mailet, rather than having to > track changes, if/when he submits his change, it could be incorporated into > the next build. I was only using the specific case as an example, and I agree that Andreas's DSN solution should make it into the next build. My only concern is that we get yet another processor with special meaning, besides root and error. I suggest that we make the processor name a parameter to RemoteDelivery. <DSNProcessor>dsn</DSNProcessor> > > I am not saying that we should not expose some things that aren't, but > let's be judicious about it. > > --- Noel > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Søren Hilmer, M.Sc. R&D manager Phone: +45 70 27 64 00 TietoEnator IT+ A/S Fax: +45 70 27 64 40 Ved Lunden 12 Direct: +45 87 46 64 57 DK-8230 Åbyhøj Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
