Are you saying that no Apache project should use javax.mail? Tim O'Brien
-----Original Message----- From: Jason Hunter [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2000 2:55 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: cvs commit:.... MailMessage.java James Todd wrote: > > isn't it possible and most likely preferred that when there are implementation > choices (choices are good) to "shield" the actual mail message implementation > behind an adaptor or what not that is in turn intimately aware of ant? that way, > if javax.mail is available, as determined by the adapter at run time, an argueably > rich and solid extension is available but if that javax.mail is not available then > an alternative package is used. But we're talking about sending a mail message. Easy thing, standard way to do it, just follow the RFC. If we have an Apache-license way to do it, I think going through the work of creating an adapter infrastructure to allow the use of a non-freely redistributable library is overkill. It's not like choosing an XML parser where there are memory/speed/compatability tradeoffs. Now, we don't yet have an Apache-license way to do an attachment, but adding that to MailMessage would take about as much work as writing the adapter infrastructure, and once you were done you'd have an Apache-license freely-redist way of doing attachments. I view that as a Good Thing. If someone wants to implement an Apache-license javax.mail I wish them good luck. But if you're just wanting to send email, you'll spend more time checking into the legal implications of implementing a javax.* library than you'd spend making MailMessage do everything you want. -jh-
