That would make sense, and in that case they're definitely a relic and their use should be discouraged.`
2009/6/7 Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> > I would have thought they were created to provide better classes compared > to the .NET 1.1 mail ones. > > 2009/6/7 Colin Ramsay <[email protected]> > > Well look, there must have been some reason for introducing these classes - >> do we know what that reason was? Removing them is going to break quite a bit >> of code (mine included!) - would it be better to just deprecate their use? >> >> 2009/6/7 Krzysztof Koźmic <[email protected]> >> >> >>> it all depends of capabilities. >>> >>> I haven't used email sender, so I'll say what I generally think of >>> stuff like this. >>> We generally don't want to duplicate what's already in the framework. >>> Can all the scenarios be covered by FX classes? Can they easily be >>> used in every scenario EmailSender is used in? >>> >>> If yes, than +1: go ahead. >>> >>> 2009/6/7 John Simons <[email protected]>: >>> > What's everyone's view on removing Message, MessageAttachment and >>> > MessageAttachmentCollection classes and replacing them with >>> MailMessage, >>> > Attachment and AttachmentCollection (the .net framework equivalent)? >>> > Would a patch be welcome? >>> > >>> > John >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > From: John Simons <[email protected]> >>> > To: [email protected] >>> > Sent: Sunday, 31 May, 2009 1:49:22 PM >>> > Subject: Reviewing EmailSender Component >>> > >>> > Question for anyone that has been involved with the development of >>> > EmailSender Component. >>> > >>> > I'm currently reviewing the source code doco, and also writing new doco >>> for >>> > the web site, so that this component can be released. >>> > >>> > In regards to Message, MessageAttachment and >>> MessageAttachmentCollection >>> > classes, >>> > the Message class summary documentation tag describes the Message class >>> as >>> > "Abstracts an e-mail message". >>> > >>> > Maybe I'm not seeing the whole picture yet, but I'm not too sure how >>> are >>> > these concrete classes abstracting anything? What are we trying to >>> abstract? >>> > >>> > Why not just use the .net classes in System.Net.Mail (MailMessage, >>> > Attachment and AttachmentCollection)? >>> > >>> > Does it have anything to do with these classes originally being in >>> > System.Web.Mail? >>> > >>> > Cheers >>> > John >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.. >>> > >>> > >>> > ________________________________ >>> > Need a Holiday? Win a $10,000 Holiday of your choice. Enter now.. >>> > > >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > Jono > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Castle Project Development List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/castle-project-devel?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
