fair enough. i've only used the message generation and dispatch portion of javaMail ... that said it is a very small part of javaMail ... too bad it isn't made available as a standalone.
- james Jason Hunter wrote: > 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-
