geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Neal Sanche <>
Subject Re: JavaMail Redux
Date Sun, 02 Oct 2005 19:48:21 GMT
David Jencks wrote:

> I'm very unclear as to what works in your example and what doesn't.   
> I'd appreciate clear answers to the following questions:
> As a starting point, I'm assuming that you are using the 
> configuration  in which you have put the sun javamail and activation 
> implementations  into the classpath before or instead of the geronimo 
> ones.
> 1. If you remove the attribute
>>      <attribute name="debug">true</attribute>
>  completely, can you send and receive mail?

I'm not currently trying to receive mail. If the property is not there, 
there seems to be no effect on functionality. Mail will send.

> 2. If you include the attribute
>>      <attribute name="debug">true</attribute>
> can you send and receive mail, although there is no debug output?

There is no debug output, mail does send.

> 3. If you remove the attribute
>>      <attribute name="debug">true</attribute>
> and include an attribute
> <attribute name="properties">mail.debug=true</attribute>
> can you send and receive mail, and is there debug output?

Yes, I can send, and there is debug output!

> There is definitely a bug in the handling of the "debug" attribute, 
> but  you should be able to work around it by using the properties 
> attribute.   It is not clear from your post whether including the 
> explicit debug  attribute results in no mail service or no debug info 
> with working mail  service.

My biggest problem is that no matter how I try, I cannot get the property to stick. I would think this falls under 'no 
mail service', since many people require a connection to an external 
smtp server for mail sending to work.

> I have not followed the issues of shipping the sun javamail  
> implementation in depth, but I believe that until very recently the  
> license definitely prohibited apache from distributing the sun  
> implementation and that the license has recently changed to make this  
> issue murky.

I understand the license issues. Personally, I don't mind getting 
another one, installing it, and using it in a supported way. I'm just 
trying to figure out the supported way through trial and error.



View raw message