For consideration: c) allow mailets (and matchers?) to log messages at levels other than info, i.e. debug, warn, error, fatal etc.
Cheers Steve -----Original Message----- From: Serge Knystautas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2002 12:46 PM To: James Developers List Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: Mailet API] I think I've sent around my thoughts on this, but here goes anyway. a) I would like at some point to change the mailet API to have object attributes on the Mail object (e.g., add getAttribute(String name), setAttribute(String name, Object value), remoteAttribute(String name)). This would let you pass information between matchers and mailets, and mailets and mailets for that matter. b) the CommandForListserv/AvalonListservManager is a bad design pattern IMHO (although I did write it). Matchers are supposed to be convenient ways to component-ize functionality you might want to use in multiple mail apps. Checking the remote IP address, looking up a blacklist via DNS, checking a header, etc... these are great checks that anybody could use, and make great matchers. I think if you're doing something so functionally-specific as CommandForListserv does, you should just use the All matcher and have the Mailet do all the work. There's nothing a matcher can do that a mailet can't, and I don't think we need to change the API to make mailets have a default... I think this makes the API more complicated without simplifying configuration in most cases. I mean to write a decent listserv soon and will likely squash/deprecate the command for listserv matcher since it is a bad example, IMHO. -- Serge Knystautas Loki Technologies - Unstoppable Websites http://www.lokitech.com/ Jeff Keyser wrote: > I agree that the work of matching and doing something should be separate. > However, I'd like to suggest an alternative way of communicating, since it > may be helpful for a Mailet to know what parameters were user by the > Matcher. > > I'm thinking specifically about the CommandForListserv Matcher and the > AvalonListservManager Mailet. It would probably be helpful for the Mailet > to explicitly know which mailing list it is processing for. It may also be > helpful to know which command was matched, but that's getting even more > complicated. > > How to do this? I'm not sure, but if it can be done cleanly, I see it being > useful. > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Andrew Timberlake [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] >>Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 12:00 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: [Fwd: Re: Mailet API] >> >> >>Thanks Dave for the response >>I'm forwarding this thread back into the list as I would like to hear >>the main developers, and others, feedback and insight into this. >> >>Thanks >> >>Andrew >> >>-----Forwarded Message----- >> >>From: Dave Morris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: Andrew Timberlake <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Subject: Re: Mailet API >>Date: 22 Apr 2002 16:19:22 +0100 >> >>Yep. >>Quite true. >>However, kind of makes the Matcher redundant if all the >>Mailets start doing their >>own matching. >> >>I kind of like the separation of functionality, a Matcher >>filters the messages >>and a Mailet does stuff with the messages. What I want to add >>is a way of the >>Mailet an Matcher to talk to each other, mainly to share configuration >>information. >> >>This came up when I was experimenting with designing some of >>my own custom >>Mailets. >>In each case, the Mailet needed to process emails to one or >>more addresses in a >>list or group. >>Both the Mailet and Matcher needed to be configured to access >>the same list of >>addresses. >> >>I kept ending up with an odd situation where both the Mailet >>and Matcher share >>the same list of addresses, but they can't communicate >>directly with each other. >> >>Much like the current RecipientIsLocal Matcher and >>LocalDeliver Mailet, both have >>to use an Avalon lookup to get a reference to the local >>reporistory, but they >>can't talk to each other. >> >>You are right, it is possible to implement using the current >>API, just a few >>extra hoops to jump through. >>The proposed change would just make it a little easier to >>design Matcher and >>Mailet combinations. >>If it causes too many side effects, then it isn't worth it. >> >>Thanks, >>Dave >> >> >>Andrew Timberlake wrote: >> >> >>>Just a quick question. >>>A mailet can perform the function of a matcher just by virtue of >>>checking the mail message as it processes it. Therefore >> >>could you not >> >>>achieve what you are looking for with the match="ALL" and then write >>>"matching" information into the mailet? >>> >>>Andrew >>> >>>On Mon, 2002-04-22 at 14:21, Dave Morris wrote: >>> >>>>Hi, >>>> >>>>I would like to propose a change to the Mailet API, and would be >>>>interested in thoughts and ideas. >>>> >>>>At the moment, Mailets have no access to their Matcher. >>>>I appreciate that this is probably by design. >>>>However ..... I would like to suggest adding the >>> >>following to the Mailet >> >>>>API. >>>> >>>> /** >>>> * Create a Matcher for this Mailet. >>>> * Default is to return null and let the container create the >>>>Matcher. >>>> * Advantage is that the Mailet can use it's internal data to >>>>generate and configure a suitable Matcher. >>>> * Disadvantage is that the Mailet interface becomes >>> >>tied to the >> >>>>Matcher interface. >>>> * >>>> */ >>>> public Matcher getMatcher() ; >>>> >>>>And changing the code which loads the Mailets and Matchers in >>>>JamesSpoolManager to this. >>>> >>>> Mailet mailet = null; >>>> Matcher matcher = null; >>>> // >>>> // Allow blank 'match' attribute in config XML. >>>> String matcherName = c.getAttribute("match", null); >>>> // >>>> // Load the Mailet. >>>> mailet = loadMailet(mailetClassName, mailetcontext, c) ; >>>> // >>>> // If the config specified a Matcher. >>>> if (null != matcherName) >>>> { >>>> matcher = loadMatcher(matcherName, mailetcontext) ; >>>> } >>>> // >>>> // If not, see if the Mailet has it's own Matcher. >>>> else { >>>> matcher = mailet.getMatcher() ; >>>> } >>>> // >>>> // If we still don't have a Matcher. >>>> if (null == matcher) >>>> { >>>> // >>>> // Two possible options. >>>> // a) Throw an Exception saying "No Matcher specified >>> >>for Mailet". >> >>>> // b) Add a default 'All' Matcher. >>>> // Depends which people think makes more sense .... >>>> // >>>> } >>>> >>>>This does not break any of the existing Maliets or configuration. >>>>All of the existing mailets can implement the new method >>> >>and return >> >>>>null, leaving the container to configure the Matcher. >>>>All of the exisiting configuration stays the same, any >>> >>Matcher specified >> >>>>in the config will override the Matcher generated by a new Mailet. >>>> >>>>As an example of what this change would gain, consider the local >>>>delivery Mailet and Matcher. >>>> >>>> <mailet match="RecipientIsLocal" class="LocalDelivery"/> >>>> >>>>In order to check if the recipient is a local user, the >>> >>Matcher needs to >> >>>>access the local repository. >>>>In order to store the mail, the Mailet needs to access the local >>>>repository. >>>> >>>>Two separate components, both of which need be configured >>> >>to access the >> >>>>local repository. >>>> >>>>If the LocalDelivery Mailet was able to generate it's own >>> >>Matcher, then >> >>>>the configuration could be changed to this. >>>> >>>> <mailet class="LocalDelivery"/> >>>> >>>>In this example, the Mailet would create it's own RecipientIsLocal >>>>Matcher. >>>>Not much of an advantage as yet. >>>>However, the domain for the Mailet could be configurable, >>> >>so we could >> >>>>have this. >>>> >>>> <mailet class="LocalDelivery"> >>>> <domain>mydomain.com</domain> >>>> </mailet> >>>> >>>> <mailet class="LocalDelivery"> >>>> <domain>myother.com</domain> >>>> </mailet> >>>> >>>>In each case, the Mailet would generate it's own Matcher, >>> >>configured to >> >>>>match recipients for the specified domain. >>>>Yes, I know it is possible to implement this example >>> >>using the current >> >>>>API. >>>> >>>> <mailet match="RecipientIsInDomain=mydomain.com" >>>>class="LocalDelivery"> >>>> <domain>mydomain.com</domain> >>>> </mailet> >>>> >>>> <mailet match="RecipientIsInDomain=myother.com" >>>>class="LocalDelivery"> >>>> <domain>myother.com</domain> >>>> </mailet> >>>> >>>>However, providing a link between the Mailet and Matcher >>> >>would make it >> >>>>easier to create more complicated Matcher/Mailet >>> >>combinations to handle >> >>>>dynamic lists of addresses. >>>> >>>>Any thoughts ? >>>> >>>>Thanks, >>>>Dave >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>-- >>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: >>> >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>>>For additional commands, e-mail: >>> >><mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >>>-- >>>Andrew Timberlake >>>Digital Design Development >>>http://www.ddd.co.za >>>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>011 705 1737 >>>082 415 8283 >>> >>>"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, >>>then programming must be the process of putting them in." >> >> >>-- >>Andrew Timberlake >>Digital Design Development >>http://www.ddd.co.za >>mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>011 705 1737 >>082 415 8283 >> >>"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, >>then programming must be the process of putting them in." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
