[darcs-users] Re: Darcs and a single developer working on multiple workstations

Max Battcher me at worldmaker.net
Thu Mar 24 04:36:53 UTC 2005


Aaron Denney wrote:
> Not really.  It's more like saying darcs shouldn't bother to be an ssh
> client if it can get that functionality from another source.  We want
> a system including darcs to have certain functionalities.  Often the
> easiest and most flexible way to get that functionality is to put it
> in the rest of the system.  Sendmail and other MTAs have a lot more
> flexibility, including working behind proxies, handling sporadicaly
> connected systems, etc.  Properly implementing a ful-blown SMTP client
> isn't trivial, and requires more than just speaking SMTP -- we also need
> a DNS client to lookup MXs, an option to retry the other servers when
> one is down, a queueing mechanism so that the user can get back to work
> rather than waiting for that shell to become available, etc.  Calling 
> sendmail (whether it's implemented via qmail, postfix, or exim, it's the
> standard interface) gets us all of that and more, for free.
> 

That still doesn't mean it is not a good idea for when sendmail or MAPI
fails (particularly when MAPI fails, as it is prone to do) falling back
on "simple Haskell SMTP" for final fallback, particularly if you can
find someone who has already written one (as one of the parents posted a
quick link).  Sure, it could fail, but it helps with cross-platform woes
(non-unix systems rarely have a sendmail) and makes it that much easier
to work "out of the box".

The only real complaint is one of code bloat, but in most cases it is
simply a matter of not building that part of it if you don't need it,
which is what configure is for.

-- 
--Max Battcher--
http://www.worldmaker.net/





More information about the darcs-users mailing list