james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Interface Field
Date Thu, 26 Feb 2009 19:58:39 GMT
Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
> The newly introduced interface mime4j.parser.Field misses some of the
> method that where previously available in class mime4j.class.Field.
> The methods are still there but the user has to cast to AbstractField
> (with instanceof check of course) to gain access to them..
> Now the question is should we pull up some of the methods, remove them
> or move them to other places?
> IMO there are three categories of methods:
> 1) the static methods parse(ByteSequence), parse(String) and getParser()
> These are still accessible but Field.parse() felt natural whereas
> AbstractField.parse() feels clumsy in my opinon.. I would prefer a
> separate class for these.
> 2) isValidField(), getParseException()
> Pull up?

I personally would rather keep Field interface as generic ad simple as 
possible. I agree static parsing methods should go to a separate class. 
isValidField(), getParseException() do not belong to Field, in my opinion.

> 3) isContentType(), isSubject(), isFrom() and isTo()
> Feels arbitrary and incomplete.. remove?

+1 to remove.


> Cheers,
> Markus
> PS: We can address some or all of these issues in 0.7 of course..

View raw message