Serge Knystautas wrote:
>
> Federico Barbieri wrote:
> > P.S. Just one thing need to be absolutly unchageable from now... it's
> > the mailet interface.
> >
> > I agree with you 'bout not returning anything from the service but I
> > don't think a boolean is a good point. A mailet MUST take care of
> > handling the mail and if this do not happend it's an error and an
> > exception should be thrown, not a boolean "false". So my purpose if
> >
> > public void service(Mail mail);
>
> How do you determine whether James is supposed to continue processing
> the message? Right now you can return null, and with boolean you could
> return true. Something closer to my original design... we could put a
> flag in Mail that indicates that a message is done with processing.
> This is needed because some mailets will just be simple filters (change
> a datetime stamp, append a disclaimer at the bottom of the message) and
> others will "receive" an email (autoresponders, deliverers
> (local/remote))
Ok. I get your point. Good.
What about
Mail.setState(String state)
with defined static values as TERMINATED, IN_PROGRESS, ERROR?
This avoid the need of returning a boolean (which I don't like).
>
> I'm happy with the conf suggestions at this point. The only concern I
> have is using "id" as that's an XML reserved attribute which is supposed
> to be globally unique (within the document), and we're by definition
> using it in 2 places I think. Even if we changed it to only use it once
> when we defined it, it's possible match and servlet would have the same
> "id"... could we make this name or something like that?
>
No good ideas on this... Stefano, what's your opinion 'bout?
Fede
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://java.apache.org/>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
