james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Labib Iskander, Marcus" <...@cm-ag.de>
Subject RE: [Mailet API] Logging Proposal
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2002 19:17:42 GMT
Please Noel,

I would greatly appreciate if you suspect me to have a basic understandig of
what you folks were talking about.

> This thread
> started first as "Finer Logging", then became "Mailet API", 

Okay, sorry, I didn't read the other threads.

> > there seems to be just complete consensus about that there 
> is no extension
> > of the Mailet API needed.
> 
> This is a question of semantics.  The issue is not the Mailet 

The Mailet API consists of a couple of interfaces and classes which nobody
wants to change (at least not extend). You are saying adding the rule that a
container has to interpret a couple of interfaces is a "semantic" change of
the API? Okay you are right. But I say: this change is easily ignored.
And leads to version problems even if it is not. And concerning version
incompatibility I would always prefer the compiler to do the compatibility
check. Those well proven Avalon Framwork interfaces (I appreciate the beauty
of them) are great when you were using them from the start.

But what I was pointing out in my former mail is that you were not argueing
about something specific as I perceived it, like, of course, this (mine)
mail, which is also completly redundant. [I don't think that my last was
redundant]

> 
> > Maybe you know alternative Mailet containers, but I don't.
> > Maybe you hope to spread the Mailet API as a standard, but I won't.
> 
> This is Danny's stated goal.  If we don't have alternative 
> containers, there
> is much less of an issue, because James *IS* built on Avalon 
> technologies
> (Paul, please note usage: James uses Frameworks, Phoenix, 
> Cornerstore),
> rather than how to allow alternative containers.

As you are concerned about portable Mailets even more than Danny is, I
suspect you to like the api spread even more? Or something like: If it is
spreading at all, Mailets should be portable?
I think it is not worth talking about which is worse: An API change or
having an optionally used feature implemented not just everywhere.
The more you are risking the latter even by choosing the former ;)
I think Container programmers will support the Avalon FRAMEWORK interfaces
when and only when they like them, independendly of what you specify in the
API. But since I know only JAMES I am not very much concerned.

> > I am not using [James] logging since we have logging 
> facilities of our own
> 
> If you could have James use YOUR logging facilities, without 
> your having to
> change Jame's code, would you?

I don't like the idea of using reflection in the context of logging very
much ;)


Cheers,
  Marcus

--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message