On Thu, 2005-04-14 at 11:11 -0400, Serge Knystautas wrote:1. Line feeds... it seems the protocol handler is all line feed based, so: a. if client is sending crlf or lf, what impact does that have?
This could potentially mess things up. I'm working right now on making the protocol decoder more robust and integrating some of the cr/lf logic from James.
Cool.
The decoder I'm using right now was copied straight out of one of Trustin's examples. This was the simplest approach when I first started playing with Mina.
Can you swap out decoders? I'm thinking what we want is one (set of?) decoders during the command sequence, and then another during the DATA phase.
2. Command impls... I saw you inlined all the commands into the SMTP handler class... was this just done for simplicity, and would you see any downside to splitting each command into its own class? The benefit
I think this is a great idea. I in-lined all the command implementations because that's the way the James SMTP protocol handler does it. I like the idea of separating each command into its own class and making it possible to customize how each command is handled. Excellent suggestion.
We had talked about it ages ago. MINA lends itself much better to it since the state info is self-contained. SMTP isn't as big of a deal in terms of size, but IMAP would benefit a lot given the much larger set of commands.
Thanks a lot Serge for your valuable feedback.
Thanks for taking a stab at this! It seems like a good perpendicular change to the container/POJO issues.
-- 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]
