Rick McGuire wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Rick McGuire wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Alan D. Cabrera wrote:
Why would we need both?
We don't need both at the same time.
But:
1) I guess that geronimo-javamail is not as stable and feature
complete as the sun-javamail.
2) We use javamail 1.4 apis (geronimo-javamail seems to be 1.3
compliant)
So what I think we could do is adding the handling of geronimo
specific stuff while keeping the default to sun.
This way one could test it and find out the differences.
1) Maybe not as stable. What features do you think are missing?
The version that shipped with Geronimo 1.0 was missing a lot of
features (threw unimplemented exceptions, etc.) as well as out right
buggy in places. The version that just shipped with 1.1 should be
complete (the APIs anyway). The version shipping with 1.1 only
supports SMTP. However, the newly created javamail component
(separate build tree) supports POP3, NNTP, and NNTP-POST. IMAP is
in the works.
So this build tree, do you mean trunk?
There are multiple pieces to the javamail support. The first piece is
the specs, which is in the specs build tree. In Geronimo 1.1, the
SMTP provider that went with this was a module in Geronimo
(javamail-transport). A couple weeks ago, I created a new javamail
repository that contains all of the providers. This project also
builds an uber-jar that contains the specs and the providers. The
source for this is:
https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/javamail/trunk
One of the javamail changes I recently submitted for [RTC] review will
remove the javamail-transport module from the Geronimo code tree, and
replace it with a dependency on the javamail-providers jar file.
Thanks for the info Rick.
Regards,
Alan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
