Re: Seperation of Mail-classes (was Mail_Box RFC (?))

Jan Schneider wrote:

Zitat von Wolfram Kriesing <wolfram@visionp.de>:

i partly agree with that too. I definetly would reduce some overhead. But you always have to watch out for common functionality that might be used in each of those classes, that should not be copy-pasted. The naming for those different packages might be an issue to think about. For the mailing, i would suggest: since there is already a package 'Mail' i think we might create packages such as Mail_Box_POP3 Mail_Box_IMAP Mail_Box_... I think the prefix Net_ should be used here for the protocol implementation. The common classes, such as Mail_[Box_]Message and Mail_[Box_]Attachment for building and reading those parts could be seperate packages which might be used by the above listed classes.

I disagree. The classes for messages, attachments etc have nothing to do with mail protocols at all and should be completely seperated.

i actually thought Net_* was what should implement protocols, Mail_* i thought was meant to contain classes that have to do with mail. But that was just my thinking, what is the common agreement here? If it is different where should those go, or should they not exist seperatly at all?

We (Horde) will perhaps soon propose our MIME package for PEAR that is definetely the most complete PHP solution available for MIME handling.

i think we are looking forward to that -- Wolfram ... opensource @ vision:produktion ... http://opensource.visionp.de ... authentication system .... http://sf.net/projects/auth