ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jason Hunter <>
Subject Re: cvs commit:....
Date Tue, 27 Jun 2000 18:55:23 GMT
James Todd wrote:
> isn't it possible and most likely preferred that when there are implementation
> choices (choices are good) to "shield" the actual mail message implementation
> behind an adaptor or what not that is in turn intimately aware of ant? that way,
> if javax.mail is available, as determined by the adapter at run time, an argueably
> rich and solid extension is available but if that javax.mail is not available then
> an alternative package is used.

But we're talking about sending a mail message.  Easy thing, standard
way to do it, just follow the RFC.  If we have an Apache-license way to
do it, I think going through the work of creating an adapter
infrastructure to allow the use of a non-freely redistributable library
is overkill.  It's not like choosing an XML parser where there are
memory/speed/compatability tradeoffs.  

Now, we don't yet have an Apache-license way to do an attachment, but
adding that to MailMessage would take about as much work as writing the
adapter infrastructure, and once you were done you'd have an
Apache-license freely-redist way of doing attachments.  I view that as a
Good Thing.  

If someone wants to implement an Apache-license javax.mail I wish them
good luck.  But if you're just wanting to send email, you'll spend more
time checking into the legal implications of implementing a javax.*
library than you'd spend making MailMessage do everything you want.


View raw message