How about getMailetContext().getUserRepository(Object name) instead of getMailetContext().getUserRepository(String name)
Harmeet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Danny Angus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "James Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 5:40 AM Subject: RE: Avalon dependance in mailets > Hi, > > My next step is a little less clear, and requires some decision making, > > I'm going to do the same thing for user repositories, so that > getMailetContext().getUserRepository(String name) > returns a UserRepository, however I don't like the incosistency between URL > specifications for MailRepositories and names for UserRepositories. > > We need, IMO, to select one style and use it consistently, I favour URL's, > which allow repositories to be created dynamically by mailets without extra > config changes, but what are the other opinions? Technnically its not a big > issue but in order to ensure portability of mailets, the primary objective > of the excercise, we need to document what the string can contain. > > I'm going to implement getMailetContext().getUserRepository(String name) on > the basis that it doesn't break existing configurations, and changing it to > getMailetContext().getUserRepository(String URL) later is not really a > change to the method signature, but an implementation detail. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Danny Angus [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > > I've started commiting changes I've made which remove avalon > > dependance from > > the standard mailets. > > Starting with repository access, > > > -- > 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]>
