-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel Quinlan writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Justin Mason) writes: > >> OK, I had an idea. Conceptually we have these main objects during >> scanning: >> >> 1. the message object passed in from the user: MsgParser? > >Question: should it just be named "Message" ? > >> 2. the "main" factory object used to create other objects and >> store global state: Mail::SpamAssassin > >Okay. > >> 3. a scanner object: Mail::SpamAssassin::PerMsgStatus, so called >> because it holds "per-message status information" > >I'm with you... > >> I propose we rename #3 to: Mail::SpamAssassin::Scan. Why? because >> a scanning operation is conceptually: >> >> - user creates Mail::SpamAssassin factory >> >> - user creates Mail::SpamAssassin::MsgParser object with the mail text >> he wants to check > >Mail::SpamAssassin::Message > >> - user passes Mail::SpamAssassin::MsgParser object to >> Mail::SpamAssassin::check() method >> >> - that creates, runs and returns a Mail::SpamAssassin::Scan object >> containing data about that scan operation > >Okay. > >> - (repeat steps 2-4) >> >> In other words, the Mail::SpamAssassin::Scan object is data about a >> "scan operation". Hence "Scan". make sense? (it's certainly shorter >> than "PerMsgStatus".) > >"Scan" sounds good to me. > >Just so it's been asked, is the current top-level object design and this >approach the right way? FWIW, I think so. - --j. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Exmh CVS iD8DBQFAMoT9QTcbUG5Y7woRApDcAKDrxxkTAv6PxEDmKnYwQy8VqVdIhACfe4zl QYEMy82DrYCvatQtLatqMQQ= =85lo -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
