Mailing-List: contact commons-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-Id: <200302112233.h1BMXukh024067@yoda.savarese.org>
To: "Jakarta Commons Users List" <commons-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [NNTPClient usage] 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 10 Feb 2003 19:13:58 +0100."
             <3E47EBE6.50409@antares.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 17:33:56 -0500
From: "Daniel F. Savarese" <dfs@savarese.org>


In message <3E47EBE6.50409@antares.no>, Stig Tollefsen writes:
>Shouldn't _reader, _writer and _isAllowedToPost have (at least) =

>protected access scope in NNTP, or alternatively be accessible via =

>accessor methods?

I'm too swamped right now to look at this in detail, but your comments
sound on the mark.  I'm sure there was some non-technical for the
implementation decision dating back to when it was commercial software.
There are a number of extensibility problems in the overall library
that we should work toward redesigning and this looks like one of them.
So your observations don't get forgotten, I suggest you open a bugzilla
report and maybe include a patch as an attachment to the report.  You
may also want to open a separate report, including patches for extended
NNTP functionality (in an NNTPClient subclass or NNTPClient proper) if
you would like to see your implementations of extended NNTP commands
incorporated into the main source tree.  Right now we want to package a
release of the current code before adding new stuff (hopefully before
the end of the month).  So your additions will be incorporated after the
first release.

Thanks for your contributions!
daniel