JavaMail

Discussion in 'Java' started by Digby, Jul 29, 2005.

  1. Digby

    Digby Guest

    Hi,

    I'm sure this has been mentioned befroe, but I an't find a satisfactory
    answer, but why is JavaMail separate from JSE (and JEE?), and then why
    is it two separate downloads (mail.jar and activation.jar)?

    I'm a massive fan of Java and have been for ages, but having played with
    ..NET for the last few months, where mail is an integral part of the
    framework, I do wonder why Java makes things so hard sometimes. Surely
    sending e-mails is a pretty fundamental function these days.

    Maybe there's a good reason...?

    Dig
     
    Digby, Jul 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Digby

    jan V Guest

    > I'm sure this has been mentioned befroe, but I an't find a satisfactory
    > answer, but why is JavaMail separate from JSE (and JEE?), and then why
    > is it two separate downloads (mail.jar and activation.jar)?
    > Maybe there's a good reason...?


    If I were you, I'd go ask the Sun people themselves.. and then post the
    answer here :)

    [I totally agree that too often Sun make things ridiculously hard and/or
    complex. Clearly the original designers of Java have had very little say on
    the continuing evolution of the APIs, and recently even the language
    [[generic types syntax? YUECHHH !!!]]]
     
    jan V, Jul 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Digby

    jan V Guest

    > I'm sure this has been mentioned befroe, but I an't find a satisfactory
    > answer, but why is JavaMail separate from JSE (and JEE?), and then why
    > is it two separate downloads (mail.jar and activation.jar)?
    > Maybe there's a good reason...?


    If I were you, I'd go ask the Sun people themselves.. and then post the
    answer here :)

    [I totally agree that too often Sun make things ridiculously hard and/or
    complex. Clearly the original designers of Java have had very little say on
    the continuing evolution of the APIs, and recently even the language
    [[generic types syntax? YUECHHH !!!]]]
     
    jan V, Jul 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Digby

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:55:57 +0100, Digby <> wrote
    or quoted :

    >I'm sure this has been mentioned befroe, but I an't find a satisfactory
    >answer, but why is JavaMail separate from JSE (and JEE?), and then why
    >is it two separate downloads (mail.jar and activation.jar)?
    >
    >I'm a massive fan of Java and have been for ages, but having played with
    >.NET for the last few months, where mail is an integral part of the
    >framework, I do wonder why Java makes things so hard sometimes. Surely
    >sending e-mails is a pretty fundamental function these days.
    >
    >Maybe there's a good reason...?


    What usually happens is things start out separate, and if they catch
    on, they get made part of the main distribution. It is perhaps time to
    include Javamail and JAF in the JRE.

    --
    Bush crime family lost/embezzled $3 trillion from Pentagon.
    Complicit Bush-friendly media keeps mum. Rumsfeld confesses on video.
    http://www.infowars.com/articles/us/mckinney_grills_rumsfeld.htm

    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    See http://mindprod.com/iraq.html photos of Bush's war crimes
     
    Roedy Green, Jul 31, 2005
    #4
  5. Digby wrote:
    > I'm a massive fan of Java and have been for ages, but having played with
    > .NET for the last few months, where mail is an integral part of the
    > framework, I do wonder why Java makes things so hard sometimes. Surely
    > sending e-mails is a pretty fundamental function these days.
    >
    > Maybe there's a good reason...?


    Where do you want to draw the line?

    Maybe one out of ten thousand applications needs a mail API. Does that
    warrant inclusion into the J2SE core? Is mail really a fundamental
    feature for a language? And if yes, do you want to see each and every
    other feature which is only needed by one out of ten thousand
    applications as part of the Java core? Fine, because I could make use of
    a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs. Do you want to
    see that in every Java SE?

    Not that I agree with every choice of library which Sun has included in
    the SE (e.g. CORBA, LDAP come to mind). But if I would have to make the
    decision I would go for a much smaller core, and a much better organized
    set of mandatory standard extensions, where I would require that a Java
    licensee has to implement each and every of them. Provision of standard
    extensions should not be optional, but they should not be bundled with
    the core. They should be available separately in a well defined,
    standardized way, and version-managed (DLL hell anyone?).

    Not that Sun will do that anytime soon. Instead some people currently
    think about extending the language to directly support XML :-(

    /Thomas

    --
    The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
    ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq
    http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/computer-lang.java.gui.faq/
     
    Thomas Weidenfeller, Aug 1, 2005
    #5
  6. On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:04:33 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:

    > ..I could make use of
    > a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs.


    Heck, yeah! So could I.

    ...Mail?

    --
    Andrew Thompson
    physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info
    Too Hot For Radio
     
    Andrew Thompson, Aug 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Digby

    Joan Guest

    "Andrew Thompson" <> wrote in message
    news:1ewj3aykoeqcj$...
    > On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:04:33 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    >
    >> ..I could make use of
    >> a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs.

    >
    > Heck, yeah! So could I.


    How many people do simulations, 1 percent or less?
    Waste of resources.

    >
    > ..Mail?
    >
    > --
    > Andrew Thompson
    > physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com
    > athompson.info
    > Too Hot For Radio
     
    Joan, Aug 1, 2005
    #7
  8. On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:34:17 -0500, Joan wrote:

    > "Andrew Thompson" <> wrote in message
    > news:1ewj3aykoeqcj$...
    >> On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:04:33 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    >>
    >>> ..I could make use of
    >>> a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs.

    >>
    >> Heck, yeah! So could I.

    >
    > How many people do simulations, 1 percent or less?
    > Waste of resources.


    '2 put of 3' so far*.

    * 85.7% of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.

    --
    Andrew Thompson
    physci.org 1point1c.org javasaver.com lensescapes.com athompson.info
    Dancing Space Potatoes? You Bet!
     
    Andrew Thompson, Aug 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Digby

    Chris Smith Guest

    Andrew Thompson <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:04:33 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    >
    > > ..I could make use of
    > > a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs.

    >
    > Heck, yeah! So could I.


    This sort of loses Thomas's point... but frankly, I'd be happy if Sun
    never considered releasing a "framework" ever again. It's not that the
    framework concept is bad; it's that Sun apparently has zero competence
    in successfully using it. At this point, nearly every non-trivial
    normal programming technique has to be "handled" by some framework
    somewhere because, as we all know, programmers in the 21st century
    shouldn't have to think about X any more.

    If only someone in Sun understood the immense amount of complexity they
    introduce with all of that, then I'd give them the green light to go
    ahead and use the technique again when it's appropriate to do it.

    A simulation framework happens to be something that I am convinced
    crosses this line. In order to provide for the features needed by EVERY
    simulation, you'd basically have to make it harder just to plug into the
    framework than to develop your own limited-purpose framework from
    scratch. On top of this, the framework configuration skills would be
    very limited, whereas the ability to put together the code to do what
    you need is far more widely useful.

    --
    www.designacourse.com
    The Easiest Way To Train Anyone... Anywhere.

    Chris Smith - Lead Software Developer/Technical Trainer
    MindIQ Corporation
     
    Chris Smith, Aug 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Andrew Thompson wrote:
    > On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:34:17 -0500, Joan wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Andrew Thompson" <> wrote in message
    >>news:1ewj3aykoeqcj$...
    >>
    >>>On Mon, 01 Aug 2005 11:04:33 +0200, Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>..I could make use of
    >>>>a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs.
    >>>
    >>>Heck, yeah! So could I.

    >>
    >>How many people do simulations, 1 percent or less?
    >>Waste of resources.

    >
    >
    > '2 put of 3' so far*.
    >
    > * 85.7% of statistics are made up on the spur of the moment.
    >


    I've used java for performance simulation of a multi-processor system.

    Patricia
     
    Patricia Shanahan, Aug 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Digby

    digby Guest

    I take all your points, and it's just occured to me that Microsoft has
    the advantage of hindsight on some of these issues and can copy the nest
    bits from Java, but it also has crammed in a lot of functionality into
    ..NET that often appears to be ill-thought out and somewhat bloated.

    I suppose one could ask that many of the Apache Commons projects could
    be incorported into the core framework, but yes, you do have to draw the
    line somewhere.

    Digby

    Thomas Weidenfeller wrote:
    > Digby wrote:
    >
    >> I'm a massive fan of Java and have been for ages, but having played
    >> with .NET for the last few months, where mail is an integral part of
    >> the framework, I do wonder why Java makes things so hard sometimes.
    >> Surely sending e-mails is a pretty fundamental function these days.
    >>
    >> Maybe there's a good reason...?

    >
    >
    > Where do you want to draw the line?
    >
    > Maybe one out of ten thousand applications needs a mail API. Does that
    > warrant inclusion into the J2SE core? Is mail really a fundamental
    > feature for a language? And if yes, do you want to see each and every
    > other feature which is only needed by one out of ten thousand
    > applications as part of the Java core? Fine, because I could make use of
    > a simulation framework in Java as part of the core APIs. Do you want to
    > see that in every Java SE?
    >
    > Not that I agree with every choice of library which Sun has included in
    > the SE (e.g. CORBA, LDAP come to mind). But if I would have to make the
    > decision I would go for a much smaller core, and a much better organized
    > set of mandatory standard extensions, where I would require that a Java
    > licensee has to implement each and every of them. Provision of standard
    > extensions should not be optional, but they should not be bundled with
    > the core. They should be available separately in a well defined,
    > standardized way, and version-managed (DLL hell anyone?).
    >
    > Not that Sun will do that anytime soon. Instead some people currently
    > think about extending the language to directly support XML :-(
    >
    > /Thomas
    >
     
    digby, Aug 1, 2005
    #11
  12. digby wrote:
    > I take all your points, and it's just occured to me that Microsoft has
    > the advantage of hindsight on some of these issues and can copy the nest
    > bits from Java, but it also has crammed in a lot of functionality into
    > .NET that often appears to be ill-thought out and somewhat bloated.


    MS is in a rather different position than Sun and has a much bigger
    advantage: They own the (desktop) operating system on which .NET is
    running. And that one already contains the stuff for mailing.

    "All" MS had to do was to document their internal component interfaces,
    and provide access via .NET, and voila, e-mail support in .NET.

    /Thomas

    --
    The comp.lang.java.gui FAQ:
    ftp://ftp.cs.uu.nl/pub/NEWS.ANSWERS/computer-lang/java/gui/faq
    http://www.uni-giessen.de/faq/archiv/computer-lang.java.gui.faq/
     
    Thomas Weidenfeller, Aug 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Digby

    jan V Guest

    > > Maybe there's a good reason...?
    >
    > Where do you want to draw the line?
    >
    > Maybe one out of ten thousand applications needs a mail API. Does that
    > warrant inclusion into the J2SE core?


    They included a pretty substantial sound API, and I'd guess that's being
    used by fewer projects than need e-mailing support...

    > Is mail really a fundamental feature for a language?


    Apart from some very well-defined exceptions such as Object and String, APIs
    are not part of the language. The boundaries of the language are the
    boundaries of the Java Language Specification. The JLS doesn't talk about
    99.99% of core classes.

    > set of mandatory standard extensions, where I would require that a Java
    > licensee has to implement each and every of them. Provision of standard
    > extensions should not be optional, but they should not be bundled with
    > the core. They should be available separately in a well defined,
    > standardized way, and version-managed (DLL hell anyone?).


    If you start unbundling "mandatory standard extensions" then you're opening
    the can of worms containing all "Can't do blah because I'm missing bleh"

    > Not that Sun will do that anytime soon. Instead some people currently
    > think about extending the language to directly support XML :-(


    Extending the language or the API? Please don't mix these two concepts up..
    it's confusing.
     
    jan V, Aug 2, 2005
    #13
  14. jan V wrote:
    >>>Maybe there's a good reason...?

    >>
    >>Where do you want to draw the line?
    >>
    >>Maybe one out of ten thousand applications needs a mail API. Does that
    >>warrant inclusion into the J2SE core?

    >
    >
    > They included a pretty substantial sound API, and I'd guess that's being
    > used by fewer projects than need e-mailing support...
    >


    Note that it would be impossible to do sound otherwise without dropping
    to native code, destroying portability. E-mail, OTOH, can be
    implemented in a 100% Java manner.

    >
    >>Is mail really a fundamental feature for a language?

    >
    >
    > Apart from some very well-defined exceptions such as Object and String, APIs
    > are not part of the language. The boundaries of the language are the
    > boundaries of the Java Language Specification. The JLS doesn't talk about
    > 99.99% of core classes.
    >
    >
    >>set of mandatory standard extensions, where I would require that a Java
    >>licensee has to implement each and every of them. Provision of standard
    >>extensions should not be optional, but they should not be bundled with
    >>the core. They should be available separately in a well defined,
    >>standardized way, and version-managed (DLL hell anyone?).

    >
    >
    > If you start unbundling "mandatory standard extensions" then you're opening
    > the can of worms containing all "Can't do blah because I'm missing bleh"
    >
    >
    >>Not that Sun will do that anytime soon. Instead some people currently
    >>think about extending the language to directly support XML :-(

    >
    >
    > Extending the language or the API? Please don't mix these two concepts up..
    > it's confusing.
    >
    >


    HTH,
    Ray

    --
    XML is the programmer's duct tape.
     
    Raymond DeCampo, Aug 2, 2005
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Joseph Millar

    Re: Smtp Server error with JavaMail

    Joseph Millar, Jul 16, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    657
    Joseph Millar
    Jul 16, 2003
  2. GaryM
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    19,905
    Scott Yanoff
    Jul 21, 2003
  3. Sudsy
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    482
    Sudsy
    Jul 16, 2003
  4. Wendy S

    javamail only for development?

    Wendy S, Jul 17, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    452
    Thomas G. Marshall
    Jul 18, 2003
  5. John Antypas

    Using JavaMail API ina proxy server?

    John Antypas, Aug 24, 2003, in forum: Java
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,081
    GaryM
    Aug 26, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page