Serge Knystautas wrote: <snipped/> > I don't think I'm too keen on using "javamail" for the > package, whether > or not it was nested below o.a.james. I wouldn't veto it, > but here are > my concerns: > > - it's a trademarked Sun term. I believe that JavaMail is, but javamail is not. But if its a worry, how about .jmail (if that's not a TM too)?
> - this code is not a replacement or implementation of JavaMail. That's true. If it was it would use the javax.mail package names so that it could be dropped straight in. > - the code in fact has very little to do with JavaMail: > a. HostAddress is DNS resolution issue It's a specialization of a javax.mail class. > b. delivery notices are a *JAF* implementation In part. The handlers are, the MimeMessages are again specializations of javax.mail classes. > > I could see a javamail package if we were implementing > javax.mail.Store > (like an mbox implementation). But as this is just general > mail server > related code, I don't think using "JavaMail" is right. I > just see a lot > of potential confusion. In my view these are specializations/extensions of JavaMail types with no mail server specific code. In fact, in the case of the MIME support, a Java mail client would use the same classes. > I would like to see it packaged somewhat differently though. Any suggestions? Perhaps we want to move this discussion back to general? It seems like we don't have a consensus! -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
