Danny Angus ha scritto:
> Stefano,
> I think this may be a bug, I suspect that if anything else changed the
> recipients between "store" and the actual write, that data would be
> lost.
> Given that mailets are multi threaded I suspect that this could
> happen, resulting in mail being "lost" by some recipients and double
> copies to others.
I don't think it may happens: mailets are multi threaded but a single
mail is processed by a single mailet at each time. Mail objects are
never accessed by multiple threads concurrently.
Stefano
> Hmm, I'll see if I can *make* it happen.
>
> d.
>
>
> On 5/31/05, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I see that RemoteDelivery does this:
>>
>> String name = mail.getName();
>> for (Iterator i = targets.keySet().iterator(); i.hasNext(); ) {
>> String host = (String) i.next();
>> Collection rec = (Collection) targets.get(host);
>> if (isDebug) {
>> StringBuffer logMessageBuffer =
>> new StringBuffer(128)
>> .append("Sending mail to ")
>> .append(rec)
>> .append(" on host ")
>> .append(host);
>> log(logMessageBuffer.toString());
>> }
>> mail.setRecipients(rec);
>> StringBuffer nameBuffer =
>> new StringBuffer(128)
>> .append(name)
>> .append("-to-")
>> .append(host);
>> mail.setName(nameBuffer.toString());
>> outgoing.store(mail);
>> }
>>
>> Please note that at every iteration the same "mail" instance is changed and
>> stored in the repository with a new name.
>>
>> Is this a supported way to handle Mailets Mail objects? Wouldn't be more
>> correct to clone the original mail at each iteration, assigning the new name
>> in the duplicate method and setting its recipients before storing it?
>>
>> Currently it works fine because RemoteDelivery does not support passthrough
>> and because we use the setName that is not and should not be available via
>> Mail interface.
>>
>> We should pay attention to this issues when talking about the new mailet
>> API.
>>
>> Stefano
>>
>>
>
