On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:38 AM, Michiel Meeuwissen wrote:
Daniel Ockeloen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:a) change a depr. call in MMBase.java : getSendMail() to return null and print a clear error in the log explaining how to solve it (you should use getModule anyway).
b) turn sendmail.xml module default to 'inactive' with comments in this
file on the 2 new options you can use (it will include a commnent :
look to the readme of the new email app).
Why not remove it? People already using it, have there own config any way.
For newbies it would seem evident that you need the mmbase-email package if
you want something with email, which evidently should include an active
sendmail.xml
See comments to kees, i was thinking about people who might feel we just
forgot them and copy some old file over it. This way we have a place extra
to inform them.
Who will effect this and how : People using email need to make a small change to their webpages (but remember the old one is broken), People who mail from java and use the getSendMail() method (they need to change the interface and use getModule("sendmail").
I don't agree with this fully. I think there should be some way to do this:
<mm:createnode type="email">
<mm:setfield name="subject">bla bla</mm:setfield>
<mm:setfield name="to">[EMAIL PROTECTED]</mm:setfield>
<mm:setfield name="body">1234 hoedje van papier</mm:setfield>
<!-- or whatever the fields where -->
</mm:createnode>
I think this is by far the most used feature of current Email builder, and
there should stay a way, at least in 1.7, to do this.
It can't and i won't, The change is very small, the problem with this way is
that depending on speed of your system and the number of mails you send
nodes where deleted before the createnode ended giving weird errors. The new
way is not perfect either personally i would like to see a few functions in the future.
Perhaps with a legacy builder implementation or so (though I even more
prefer that the new builder could work like this (e.g. a 'one-shot-email'
with no send-time sends immediately by it self or so)
See above there is a clear reason why it was done, i feel its alot better people are
forced to fix their pages than have a buggy system esp. when mailing 1000+ people
you don't want it unstable.
Can you elaborate a bit on why the old one is 'broken' (besides that it is
completely incomprehensible beyond the point of the above example)?
[X] +1 (YEA IF)
The new examples and docs are not clear ?, the old had timing problems.
- A legacy builder is included or reasons are provided why not.
I think its better we don't since the new one supports the old way (except for
the little change in the way you mail). The old one is buggy and i for one
won't fix it (see the vote on it).
- An email-project is started as well, because I foresee that it will still not be quite ready now.
This is upto the mmc, i for one think its a good idea to demand all org.mmbase.application.* applications
to be projects.
Daniel.
