Are the JavaMail and Activation JARs very big? I kind of don't mind the
dependency because of the value of having MTOM & OM married at the hip.
Another option is to introduce a static switch to disable the code ..
that way we need the jars to compile but say a cell phone deployment
doesn't want to ever support MTOM then it can turn on the compile time
switch and then run without the classes being on the classpath:
class OmOutput {
private static boolean SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION = true;
..
}
now replace all use of "doOptimise" as a condition with "doOptimise &&
SUPPORT_MTOM_OPTIMIZATION".
s/doOptimise/doOptimize/.
BTW why isn't OmOutput in o.a.a.om.OmOutput ?? IMO that's where it
belongs .. it cannot be LLOM specific!
Sanjiva.
On Tue, 2005-06-28 at 18:41 +0600, Srinath Perera wrote:
> Hi All;
>
> After the recent changes to with the OMOutput, and work on OMTest
>
> 1) OMOutput has a dependncy on the Java Mail jar
> 2) OM Text has dependancy on Activation jar
>
> that means normal Axis2 execution, (even without MTOM) needed java
> mail jar for normal execution.
>
> Is that Accceptable?
>
> If answer is yes fine all is well!, If it is not acceptable how can we
> fix it? May be tight integration of MTOM is a mistake in that case.
>
> What do you guys think? I need a Quick answer for what we need to do
> for upcoming 0.9 version and 1.0 version.
>
> Thanks
> Srinath
>
