Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2006, 21:58 +0200 schrieb Norman Maurer:
> Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2006, 13:26 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> > Norman Maurer wrote:
> >
> > > 1. I add a new method to the CommandHandler interface called
> > >getImplCommands(). This method return the commands
> > > (a
Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2006, 13:27 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
>
> > just forget to say that a "fastfailfilter" can now just add by add :
> >
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2006, 13:26 -0400 schrieb Noel J. Bergman:
> Norman Maurer wrote:
>
> > 1. I add a new method to the CommandHandler interface called
> >getImplCommands(). This method return the commands
> > (as ArrayList)
>
> Why not a Collection or a Map?
hmm .. good question..
+1
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
We have the same problems that we have in Mailets: if you need a service
you have to be Serviceable or to lookup the ServiceManager from the
Context.
Mailets ought to access key services via the MailetContext. That is why we
have MailetConfig and MailetContext, just like
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> Noel J. Bergman wrote:
> > For example, by the time we're
> > done, I expect that configure() will be replaced by init(), and
> > we'll have eliminated the Avalon API from polluting the code.
> I don't think that eliminating Avalon API from the code will be so easy.
It w
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
For example, by the time we're
done, I expect that configure() will be replaced by init(), and we'll have
eliminated the Avalon API from polluting the code.
I don't think that eliminating Avalon API from the code will be so easy.
We have the same problems that we have in
Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
I have already worked locally on a much different architecture for the
smtphandler stuff
my proposal has started from the current smtphandler branch, so I
think I could use the current handlerapi branch to show you my proposal
Can you highlight
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> I have already worked locally on a much different architecture for the
> smtphandler stuff
> my proposal has started from the current smtphandler branch, so I
> think I could use the current handlerapi branch to show you my proposal
Can you highlight the differences? Yo
Norman Maurer wrote:
> just forget to say that a "fastfailfilter" can now just add by add :
>
Norman Maurer wrote:
> 1. I add a new method to the CommandHandler interface called
>getImplCommands(). This method return the commands
> (as ArrayList)
Why not a Collection or a Map?
> If a "wrong" commandHandler is configured for the command an
> ConfigurationException is thrown
Do you
Am Dienstag, den 11.07.2006, 17:17 +0200 schrieb Norman Maurer:
> Hi guys,
>
> after workin a while on the smtp-handler-api now i think it is ready to
> get merged to trunk.
>
> Here are the things i change.
>
> 1. I add a new method to the CommandHandler interface called
> getImplCommands(). T
Norman Maurer wrote:
after workin a while on the smtp-handler-api now i think it is ready to
get merged to trunk.
Here are the things i change.
[...]
I hope i explain all core changes i made..
So what you guys think about mergin it in the trunk ?
I'm +0 on the proposal itself, but I'm +1 abou
12 matches
Mail list logo
