Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> We can still
> have your ScriptedMatcher and ScriptedMailet, too, but there
> are some cases
> (sieve comes to mind) where the semantic matches up better as
> a processor
> than a matcher/mailet model.
I still don't get it. Having looked at sieve, a mail filtering/manipulation
language, what I see is something equivalent in our current syntax to...
<mailet match="anyMatcher" class="our.sieve.implementation">
<code>sieve code</code>
</mailet>
If you are saying that...
<processor name=sieveStuff>
<mailet match="All" class="our.sieve.implementation">
<code>sieve code</code>
</mailet>
</processor>
...could be shortened to...
<processor name=sieveStuff class="our.sieve.implementation">
<code>sieve code</code>
</processor>
...Yes, that's true. As it also could be for any other mailet. This is just
making the match="All" implicit and promoting the mailet declaration to the
processor.
I do not see this as relating to scripting support, and certainly not Jelly
where we started. We are back to the matter of mailet/matcher syntax, plus
we had better add processor too!
Where do you see the usability benefits?
-- Steve
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
This private and confidential e-mail has been sent to you by Synergy Systems Limited.
It may not represent the views of Synergy Systems Limited.
If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail and have received it in error,
please notify the sender by replying with "received in error" as the subject and then
delete it from your mailbox.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
