james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Noel J. Bergman" <n...@devtech.com>
Subject RE: Mailet API was RE: Finer Logging Control for Mailets/Matchers
Date Sun, 09 Jun 2002 03:29:26 GMT
The processor should only have to know that it is calling a Mailet.
Consider how this would be called from the processor.  The difference in
return type means that you have to know what you are calling in order to
call it.

The Mail is not be immutable, give that the MimeMessage is not immutable.
Matchers and Mailets are permitted, if not sometimes required, to change the
contents during processing.  Having to clone something just to make a change
is not a happy pattern when it comes to performance.

The init() and service() interfaces are part of the general *let pattern.

I do wish, however, that the bean pattern for mutators had been

   Class C { C setProp(T p); }

instead of

   Class C { void setProp(T p); }

but Sun blew that one ages ago.

	--- Noel

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Hammant [mailto:Paul_Hammant@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 18:16
To: James Developers List
Subject: Re: Mailet API was RE: Finer Logging Control for


I'd vote for ...

interface Maillet {}
interface ConsumingMaillet extends Maillet {

  void processMailRequest(Mail mail) throws MailetException;

interface ModifyingMaillet extends Maillet {

  Mail processMailRequest(Mail mail) throws MailetException;

class Mail {  // value objects
  private final Foo foo;
  private final Bar bar;
  public Mail(Foo foo, Bar bar){
     this.foo = foo;
     this.bar = bar;
  Foo getFoo() { // etc.

I like the immutable Mail bean. All part of the API.

Idon;t like the service() method name :-)

- Paul

>>I'll hope that you have a simple API like :
>>   MailAction mailRequest(MailItem mailItem) throw MailRequestException;
>'s funny you should say that, 'cos I'd like to hear your opinion on this..
>two alternatives;
>a) Mail service(Mail mail) throws MailetException;
>b) void service(Mail mail) throws MailetException;
>the difference being that a returns a Mail which continues through the
>processing, _as__if_ the Mail had been passed by value, and b alters the
>existing message as if it had been passed by refrence (which of course it
>Now I did a lot of C programming, where the refrence approach was the
>conventional one, but in Java the by-value analogy seems to be the expected
>the argument in favour of b is that it is more efficient, and actually
>constrains processors to acting in a linear fashion, by not allowing new
>Mails to be returned.
>Alternatively it might be argued (perhaps by me ;-) that a is the more
>expected/acceptable signature and that anyway there is nothing stopping a
>mailet from replacing the value of Mail mail with a new Mail anyway.

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

View raw message