Is there any way to concretely to eliminate java.sql.Connection
getConnection()?
Yes, it need only be visible in implementations, I don't want there to
be any use mandated.
Yeah I just don't think it should be in the mailet interfaces. In
particular
context.
exactly, and in general we can allow the specification of arbitrary
services and leave db or non-db implementation as that, an
implementation detail.
"want to use mailet X? first you must install service Y. server-Y
needs an rdbms but you can use desktop-Y which peforms less well but
uses xml files"
yes
<snip>
Processor is really just a mailet, if you replace it with Mailet you
get the possibility of having an arbitrarily deep tree of nested
mailets, which I kind of like.
Spool is just a specialised repository which is FIFO and normally empty.
Yeah, we use JMS queues and our MailListeners are responsible for
dealing with
them via name injection + jndi lookup. (its probably possible in JEE5
to directly inject but
EJB3 was pretty abysmal for our purposes)
I don't really agree with this because you end up having to authenticate
with "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" which
not all clients support. users are users and users are not addresses
but users have permission to send as
addresses. addresses map to destinations which are either remote paths
or local folders.
Yeah, but consider this, map POP3 IP listener addresses to domains and
you can have two "andy" accounts on the same instance, but they will
be discrete.
This is kind of an oddball thing. It is not a feature that is common
among mail servers that I've seen
(most of my research has been in postfix, JAMES, Exchange and
dovecot). Basically you have a
concatenated principal (in security speak) of account + IP. I don't
think the Mailet API should require
servers to have this feature (that may be because I don't want to
support users attempting to use it
and therefore don't really want to implement it -- just a "where we draw
the line a features vs complexity").
Thus if a server wanted to do this it could probably do the hacky thing
and username="[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
and thus that user could have access to potentially different folders
than username="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and
username="[EMAIL PROTECTED]" and different passwords etc. The lovely
thing is mailets that are unaware of
this do not have to parse it just "nope not the same account".
d.
