On 8/15/07, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think that I agree with roberts issue regarding MailAddress (MAILET-9) > I would like to propose that the API specify an interface and possibly > an InternetAddress wrapper if we produce an RI. but that in general > the container should be concerned with RFC compliance decisions not > the API and therfore the existing MailAddress should move back to > james-server. > > WDYT?
I think I grot MAILET-9 finally. I like MailAddress as an interface. I see 3 possible constructors/implementations... a) RFCStrictMailAddress (strict) b) StringMailAddress (loose) c) JavaMailAddress (wraps InternetAddress) I think if we pushed a) and b) to server-dev, then we would logically tell JavaMail to add c). I don't see that happening and don't believe it makes a lot of sense for any involved. I think it would look even weirder if 2 implementations are in another project but then the mailet API contains one other impl to another project. I agree with Danny that it's up to the server to manage the compliance, but I think it would do that by choosing the appropriate impl that's available in the mailet API. If it really needed something beyond that, there could be an extension in James server, but the standard impls should be bundled with mailet. I have concern about c)... would you expect setters called on MailAddress to reflect the underlying InternetAddress? I would assume so with a term "wrapper", but I don't think that's feasible to implement. Maybe it is. -- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
