XP is just a number | |
PerlMonks |
Re^2: RFC: Net::SMTP::Pipeliningby tirwhan (Abbot) |
on Feb 18, 2009 at 17:23 UTC ( [id://744825]=note: print w/replies, xml ) | Need Help?? |
Thank you for your comments!
It'd be even more interesting to me if the functionality was worked into Net::SMTP::TLS One of the reason I chose this particular design (inheriting from Net::SMTP rather than using it within the module) is that I wanted to be able to mix it with other modules that also inherit from Net::SMTP (like Net::SMTP_auth and Net::SMTP::SSL). So version 0.0.2 will have a method ("extend_esmtp_pipelining" or somesuch) to which you can pass an object in a Net::SMTP (sub-)class which will then add the pipelining capability (I haven't actually thought about how to implement this 100% but I'm sure it can be done). Unfortunately, this does not help Net::SMTP::TLS, because that module does not inherit from Net::SMTP, but rather reimplements it. So unless AWESTHOLM wants his module to depend on Net::SMTP::Pipelining (which I doubt he will want to do, the whole point of the existence of Net::SMTP::TLS seems to be the desire to be free of a dependency on Net::SMTP) there will have to be some porting involved I think. I'll be happy to do that porting if there are people who'd want such a thing (and your question shows there are :-), but I'd rather have the code living in it's own module for a few weeks at least, to see whether that shakes out any bugs. I also wish there'd be a way to avoid such porting (duplicate code bad), but having looked at Net::SMTP::TLS a little just now I don't think it could be avoided. I'm sure others would like it worked into Net::SMTP since that's a commonly used module. If that is indeed the case I'll be happy to do so. That was my initial plan when I first approached this problem, but I quickly found that the problem was sufficiently intricate, and the actual process of sending an email and reporting results sufficiently different, to have the code for it live in a separate module initially. Net::SMTP is in core (which has a reputation for disdaining new features) and I wouldn't want to plunk my (possibly buggy) code on millions of unsuspecting users. Releasing it as stand-alone seems the best way to beta-test. If there is indeed popular demand to having this feature in core I'll happily deprecate this module and move the code over. All dogma is stupid.
In Section
Meditations
|
|