Proposal: Zend_Mail_Transport_File

[lcf]

Greetings!

A few weeks ago I created a proposal (http://framework.zend.com/wiki/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=22642954), it's currently in "ready to review" state. It doesn't seem that many of you read those "proposal pages" so I'm asking here.

In fact (at least as I see it) it's fully done, but there is a big question, more like about whole Zend/Mail/* package.

In short: Zend/Mail/Tranport/File instead of sending messages just dumps them to the file system. It seems to be quite useful in a development environment. The question is about the adapters for the transport. Should it have them or should it not?

Options available so far:

1) leave it as simple as it is now. if we need same thing for different storages (Mbox, maildir etc) we create new Transport called Storage that would utilize storages which implement Writable interface (I think there is just one currently, for maildir)

2) Add adapters to the current Transport without even using Storages, but to let developers define their own format of file. (probably it would be easier in this case to just develop another transport)

... more options?

I personally like (1) option.

There was a proposal to me to make it "only new feature" i.e. for ZF2.0 so the code is for the second version, but many people (and I too) think that it's a must have component (or, ok, minor feature) and as far as we don't know when zf2 comes it'd be useful to have it for 1.* as well, so I think I'll refactor it for zf1.* when we are clear about the architecture in general.

I'm looking for the opinions, especially from the core developers and CR Team so that I could complete / release this feature without having anything undiscussed. Thanks!

--
Alexander Steshenko | http://lcf.name

[Nico Edtinger-2]

Alexander Steshenko wrote:

> In short: Zend/Mail/Tranport/File instead of sending messages just dumps
> them to the file system. It seems to be quite useful in a development
> environment. The question is about the adapters for the transport. Should it
> have them or should it not?
>
> Options available so far:
>
> 1) leave it as simple as it is now. if we need same thing for different
> storages (Mbox, maildir etc) we create new Transport called Storage that
> would utilize storages which implement Writable interface (I think there is
> just one currently, for maildir)

IMAP also implements the Writable interface. But the Recent flag can't be changed via IMAP, thus if your store a new message via the IMAP storage class it won't look exactly the same as a message retrieved via SMTP. The ZF Maildir implementation also forbids setting the Recent flag, but appendMessage() has an optional fourth parameter to explicitly set this flag. You might consider adding this as an option too.

nico