It could be fun to discuss, but I think it wouldn't take long before
you are designing an application or at least a framework, and that
would be outside the scope of a commons project. In most cases,
batch email includes transaction logging and customization, and
often-times response tracking which would require more than what you
sketched out.
So, on the fun-to-discuss side, I usually avoid extending Thread when
I could implement Runnable instead -- why blow your one use of
inheritance in such a dull way? Furthermore, I don't think you'd
want to do any of this stuff in the hierarchy of classes descending
from o.a.c.mail.Email because you'd need a fair amount of
configuration information (who's going to receive these messages, for
example) that are better kept separate from the classes which are
used more simply.
Joe
At 8:35 PM +0800 11/30/04, Corey Scott wrote:
>Definately something we should add to our discussion list once 1.0 is
>out of the way.
>
>-Corey
>
>
>On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:32:28 +0100, Mark Lowe <melowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'll put the exception tests in with the the others, when its all in.
>> I left most the tests untouched anyhow just testing for EmailException
>> rather than MessagingException. Once EmailException is in the head
>> version I'll start thinking about AddressException.
>>
>> Has the issue of bulk mailing comeup before? I'm thinking of a class
>> that extends thread and then sends a email report to a specified email
>> address reporting which have been sent and those that haven't. Does
>> this fall within the scope of commons email? Email could even extend
>> thread and then just use the run method when needing to mail to lots
>> of folk.. This would be handy for webapps where the time it takes to
>> send mail exceeds the time for the request-reponse cycle.
>>
>> HtmlEmail email = ..
>> ..
>> email.batchMail();
>>
>> public void batchMail() {
>> this.run();
>> }
>>
>> public void run() {
>> try {
>> send();
>> } catch (SomeExceptionn e) {
>>
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Or would something else be a better idea? Perhaps a separate class
>> EmailSender or something?
>>
>>
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:38:30 +0800, Corey Scott
>><corey.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Sounds good to me, I have a stack of things waiting for the next version.
>> > Also I think most of the bugs have been cleared off by your recent
>> > commits so there shouldnt be any reason to stop us from a RC1
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > -Corey
>> >
>> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:01:00 +0100, Eric Pugh <epugh@upstate.com> wrote:
>> > > I've applied a stack of changes, including Mark's EmailException, to the
>> > > codebase. I don't really care much about how the unit tests
>>look, as long
>> > > as the jcoverage keeps going up!
>> > >
>> > > At this point, I think all the API changes are done, and my
>>gut feeling is
>> > > that we should look to final testing, cut a Release Candidate
>>and then roll
>> > > 1.0. We should also start thinking about what the next
>>version will entail.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Eric
>> > >
>> > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:melowe@gmail.com]
>> > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:25 PM
>> > > > To: Corey Scott
>> > > > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List; epugh@upstate.com
>> > > > Subject: Re: [email] Exceptions
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > Okay I'll take a look tommorrow and sumbit my patch with the test
>> > > > cases in with the Other test methods.
>> > > >
>> > > > Judging from you example, you agree that unexpected exceptions should
>> > > > just get thrown and that exceptions should be tested independently
to
>> > > > normal tests, which all sounds good to me. Or am i wrong? If the
>> > > > method isn't there to invoke an exception then if one happens then
>> > > > surely just throw it, the fact that its unexpected will be evident
by
>> > > > virtue of the test failing due to errors.
>> > > >
>> > > > Mark
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:04:16 +0800, Corey Scott
> > > > > <corey.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > This is exactly what I was trying to say, just not so elegantly
:-)
>> > > > >
>> > > > > Eg. Tests for the HtmlEmail class should be in teh
>>HtmlEmailTest class
>> > > > > or is this becomes too big and you want to separate the exceptions,
>> > > > > then there should be two classes HtmlEmailTest (for normal
>>test cases)
>> > > > > and HtmlEmailExceptionTest
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > -Corey
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:59:29 +0100, Eric Pugh
>><epugh@upstate.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > Humm... I typically make all my unit tests throw Exception.
>> > > > It reduces
>> > > > > > the length of each test, especially when all you are doing
is
>> > > > logging that
>> > > > > > it failed with a fail(ex.getMessage).
>> > > > > >
> > > > > > > However, if you are actually TESTING that an exception
>gets thrown:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > try {
>> > > > > > email.doSomething();
>> > > > > > fail("should have thrown ee");
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > > catch (EmailException ee){
>> > > > > > assertTrue(ee.getMessage().indexOf("myerror")>-1)
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > then I argue they should go in with whatever class we are
>> > > > testing, because
>> > > > > > when someone adds a new method to the class, it will
>> > > > encourage them to add
>> > > > > > the corresponding test case for any exeption. Or, put
the
>> > > > exception test
>> > > > > > into the test.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > public void testSomething() throws Exception{
>> > > > > > email.doSomethign();
>> > > > > > <snip/>
>> > > > > > try {
>> > > > > > email.doSomething();
>> > > > > > fail("should have thrown ee");
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > > catch (EmailException ee){
>> > > > > > assertTrue(ee.getMessage().indexOf("myerror")>-1)
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > }
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > That way everything stays together. If we aren't actually
>> > > > asserting the
>> > > > > > exception, then we shouldn't bother testing it..
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Eric
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:melowe@gmail.com]
>> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:19 PM
>> > > > > > > To: Corey Scott
>> > > > > > > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List
>> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [email] Exceptions
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > My thoughts on the test cases are that they should
>>throw exception,
>> > > > > > > and then have the exception testing separate. This
>>would make the
>> > > > > > > cases shorter also, perhaps this is what you mean.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > public void testFoo() throws Exception
>> > > > > > > {
>> > > > > > > Foo foo = new Foo();
>> > > > > > > foo.setBar("testvar");
>> > > > > > > }
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > For example, if for some reason the exception for
>>setBar() was ever
>> > > > > > > changed the case could remain the same as before,
and the
>> > > > only change
>> > > > > > > would need to be in the exception test case.
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > Mark
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:59:44 +0800, Corey Scott
>> > > > > > > <corey.scott@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > I would prefer an Exception Test case per base
class,
>> > > > especially for
>> > > > > > > > the larger files. I know most of the tests I
wrote, but
>> > > > I think that
>> > > > > > > > if anything the files are too long and would
be much more
>> > > > usable if
>> > > > > > > > they were shorter and more focused. Does anyone
have any
>> > > > objections
>> > > > > > > > to gave more (but shorter) files?
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > -Corey
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:17:30 +0100, Mark Lowe
>> > > > <melowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > I've created the exceptions and I'm now
working through the
>> > > > > > > test cases.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > If I summit a patch with the exception testing
in a
>> > > > ExceptionTestCase
>> > > > > > > > > what's the likelyhood of this being patched?
This isn't
> > > > > a question of
>> > > > > > > > > style its a question of maintainabilty and
now, I'm
>> > > > faced with the
>> > > > > > > > > task of weeding out all these try catch
statements.
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Any objection to a patch with these exception
>>tests moved into a
>> > > > > > > > > specialised test case?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > Mark
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:23:50 +0100, Mark
Lowe
>> > > > > > > <melowe@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > Okay 2 commons.mail exceptions sounds
like an improvement.
>> > > > > > > So the goal
>> > > > > > > > > > is to minimise the catch statements
the user needs to
>> > > > use, sound
>> > > > > > > > > > reasonable. Throwing everything would
mean 2 catches, so I
> > > > > > > > can see the
>> > > > > > > > > > value in catching once.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > I'll look into a way of having a 1.4+
build option in the
>> > > > > > > build files
>> > > > > > > > > > for folk that don't give a gnat's winnit
about 1.3 et al.
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Anyone know the default behaviour for
the
>> > > > > > > InternetAddress(email,name)
>> > > > > > > > > > constructor? Does it adopt the charset
from the
>>parent email?
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > Mark
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:11:06 +0100,
Eric Pugh
>> > > > > > > <epugh@upstate.com> wrote:
>> > > > > > > > > > > My take on this is that users
of [email] are looking for
>> > > > > > > a package that
>> > > > > > > > > > > simplifies the JavaMail api.
And one of the big
>> > > > > > > simplifing aspects is that
>> > > > > > > > > > > the Exceptions that they have
to catch are minimized.
>> > > > > > > Most users will
>> > > > > > > > > > > probably not care *what* the exception
was, only that
>> > > > > > > there *was* an
>> > > > > > > > > > > exception, and just pass it up
the chain. For folks who
>> > > > > > > actually have code
>> > > > > > > > > > > to deal with the specific exception,
then they
>>are either
>> > > > > > > going to use the
>> > > > > > > > > > > JavaMail api directly without
the extra layer
>>of [email],
>> > > > > > > or we should
>> > > > > > > > > > > provide a way for them to retrieve
the
>>specific Exception.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Hence that is why I propose that
we have two types
>> > > > of exceptions:
>> > > > > > > > > > > EmailException and RuntimeEmailException.
For common
>> > > > > > > exceptions, we throw
>> > > > > > > > > > > an EmailException which is an
extension of
>> > > > > > > NestableException and wraps
>> > > > > > > > > > > whatever the underlying JavaMail
exception was. This
>> > > > > > > provides a nice facade
>> > > > > > > > > > > for people who don't care what
the exception was, but
>> > > > > > > allows folks who do to
>> > > > > > > > > > > get the underlying exception.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > The other RuntimeEmailException
will extend
>> > > > > > > NestableRuntimeException and can
>> > > > > > > > > > > be used for any runtime exceptions
in the same manner as
>> > > > > > > EmailException.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > For the case of the UEE, that
would be another exception
>> > > > > > > in the API to
>> > > > > > > > > > > throw, which goes against the
charter that:
>> > > > > > > > > > > "contains a set of Java classes
providing a thin
>> > > > > > > convenience layer over
>> > > > > > > > > > > JavaMail". So, in that case,
throw the approapriate
>> > > > > > > EmailException and
>> > > > > > > > > > > that will wrap the UEE.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Mark, is it possible to use the
1.4 io stuff
>> > > > > > > conditionally? I guess not,
>> > > > > > > > > > > but we could think about maybe
how we compile the jar?
>> > > > > > > Our primary target
>> > > > > > > > > > > is definitly 1.3 for now though.
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > Eric
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:melowe@gmail.com]
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 28,
2004 4:04 PM
>> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Commons dev list; Corey
Scott
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [email] Exceptions
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The issue of exceptions has
come up a few times, and
>> > > > > > > heres a summary
>> > > > > > > > > > > > of my understanding of whats
been said and agreed and
>> > > > > > > disagreed about.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of throwing AddressException
is favourable,
>> > > > > > > but not at the
>> > > > > > > > > > > > cost of needing to throw
>>UnsupportingEncodingException.
>> > > > > > > When setting
>> > > > > > > > > > > > InternetAddress() this throws
a UEE and
>>AddressException.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that without
1.4's new io package
>> > > > > > > there's no means of
>> > > > > > > > > > > > checking supported charsets
on a given JVM.
>>If the user
>> > > > > > > enters a shady
>> > > > > > > > > > > > charset for a email address
or name is there anything
>> > > > > > > wrong with them
>> > > > > > > > > > > > having a UEE thrown?
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > The lightest means of doing
this in my opinion is just
>> > > > > > > throw both, its
>> > > > > > > > > > > > consistent with the mailapi.
It would work on all
>> > > > target JVMs.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you could just
throw MessagingException for
>> > > > > > > everything , "oh
>> > > > > > > > > > > > thats what it does". But
is this a useful
>>and therefore
>> > > > > > > good thing?
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Having a commons.mail.EmailException
was suggested,
>> > > > > > > but does that
>> > > > > > > > > > > > have any advantage over throwing
AddressException and
>> > > > > > > UEE? I'm not
>> > > > > > > > > > > > sure.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't mind summitting the
patches, i need to do this
>> > > > > > > for a project
>> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on at present,
so I need to do the work
>> > > > > > > anyway. It makes
>> > > > > > > > > > > > sense to submit this to the
effort but I don't
>> > > > mind either way.
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > > Mark
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > > > > > commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands,
e-mail:
>> > > > > > > commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>> > > > commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>> > > > commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > > > >
>> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
>>commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>>commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
>>commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> > >
>> >
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
--
Joe Germuska
Joe@Germuska.com
http://blog.germuska.com
"Narrow minds are weapons made for mass destruction" -The Ex
|