Serge Knystautas wrote:It does look simpler, and it's definitely nice to see less stream wrapping logic.
Sorry to go a little off-topic, Serge, but do you mind me asking what you dislike about stream wrapping logic?
I ask because the mime4j parser that Niklas Therning and I wrote is fundamentally designed around stream wrapping.
Oh, really just in the context of the protocol handler... e.g.,
1. the size limit was added that way, because that was the easiest feasible way given the framework we had.
2. we have a base socket inputstream ... we wrap in one input stream for a while when we handle commands because we want to handle line feeds nicely. Then in DATA phase we do it differently so that's a different input stream wrapper to the socket inputstream.
Anyway, I have no objection on principle to the pattern. Just became something of an antipattern in the SMTP handler.
-- Serge Knystautas Lokitech >> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com p. 301.656.5501 e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
