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 reply to Re^2: RFC: Net::SMTP::Pipelining by tirwhan
in thread RFC: Net::SMTP::Pipelining by tirwhan

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.