james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r419010 - in /james/server/sandbox/handlerapi/src: java/org/apache/james/smtpserver/ java/org/apache/james/smtpserver/basefilter/ java/org/apache/james/smtpserver/fastfailfilter/ test/org/apache/james/smtpserver/
Date Wed, 05 Jul 2006 08:09:25 GMT
Norman Maurer wrote:
> Hi guys,
> after reading the code a bit more i notice that the
> setStopHandlerProcessing(boolean) and getStopHandlerProcessing() is not
> needed on the current implementation. At the moment the
> handlerProccessing get stoppen after a handler write a response to the
> user. Anyway im not sure if it is the perfect behavior for a api. 
> Any ideas if we should keep my methods in the fastfail code ? or should
> we remove it. 

Imho the api should be as simple as possible: if we can't find a good 
real use case that make use of that methods we should remove them.
We are at the beginning of the work for a major release, we can safely 
experiment: we'll probably change this more while adding more handlers.

> A Other nice solution ( which i had in mind) is to create an
> AbstractCommandHandler which support all needed methods for a "real"
> api. So the developer must extend it to implement a CommandHandler. I
> will commit some code for this later. Then we can see what is better..
> Any problems here with a Abstract class ?

Abstract classes are good.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message