[Mono-list] none-standardized classes and Mail API

[Jeffrey Stedfast]

On Wed, 2001-09-12 at 05:30, Mads Pultz wrote:
> Hi!
> 
[snip]
> 
> With that said, I would like to contribute to the Mono project, and have set
> my eyes on a mail api. At http://www.go-mono.com/ideas.html the idea is to
> base a mail api on JavaMail or Camel. But, what about System.Web.Mail that
> comes with .NET? I know the classes in the namespace has limited
> functionality compared to JavaMail (don't know Camel), only smtp support,
> and the namespace is not part of the standardization. But wouldn't a
> implementation of the namespace still be useful for the Mono project (e.g.
> my earlier remarks on standardization)? Furthermore a later implementation
> of a more extensive mail api could use the functionality of System.Web.Mail
> namespace if applicable. How do you see it?

The way I see it, System.Web.Mail should use the classes that implement
Camel or JavaMail. No sense in implementing mail twice. The problem with
your idea of having a later mail implementation use System.Web.Mail is
that you wouldn't be able to build on it effectively since
System.Web.Mail wasn't designed to be extensive. It's much easier to
build a limited class on top of an extensive class, but the opposite
does not hold true.

Jeff

> 
> Regards
> Mads Pultz
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list@ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list