Noel J. Bergman wrote: > Steve, > > Did you contact Brian at all, or get a chance to look? I've > just committed > a change to fix JAMES-271 that I'd like reviewed. > > --- Noel
Hi Noel, I'm afraid that I haven't had a moment to look at this in any meaningful way. Your change looks entirely reasonable, but again I haven't had a moment to test it. On inspection, I see that there are still a few remaining references to java.net.InetAddress.get[All]ByName()in CVS for 2_1_fcs, namely... - java.net.InetAddress.getAllByName(): org.apache.james.James.initialize() - java.net.InetAddress.getByName(): org.apache.james.fetchmail.computeDefaultDomainName() org.apache.james.core.AbstractJamesService.configure(Configuration) org.apache.james.util.InetNetwork.getByAddress(byte[]) org.apache.james.transport.mailets.RemoteDeliverySocketFactory.setBindAdress (String) ... all of which look benign. None the less, shouldn't we make it a rule that ALL address resolution activity should be performed via the DNSServer? This way, we have a single 'authority' responsible for James' address resolution rules. I'm scratching my head as to an easy way to achieve this. One approach is to use Aspects. At a minimum, all invocations of java.net.InetAddress.get[All]ByName() and org.xbill.DNS.Address.get[All]ByName() would be replaced by invocations of org.apache.james.dnsserver.DNSServer.get[All]ByName(). I would favour an Aspect pre-processor which fixed up the source (rather than the byte-code), so that such fix-ups could be incorporated back into the source in the CVS. This way we fix-up once and make it visible. Due to workload and an impending sailing holiday, its unlikely that I will be able to perform much practical testing over the next couple of weeks. Comments are easy :) -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
