james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldon...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: mime4j 0.6 preview packages
Date Mon, 09 Feb 2009 23:11:10 GMT
On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 6:53 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
>>
>> (i hope to do a proper review of the releases tomorrow)
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
>> <markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Folks
>>>>
>>>> Please do take a few minutes to review the release notes, packages and
>>>> the updated web site for the upcoming 0.6 release.
>>>>
>>>> Release notes:
>>>> http://people.apache.org/~olegk/mime4j-0.6-preview/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
>>>
>>> I wonder if we should include any or all of the older notes from 0.4 and
>>> 0.5:
>>>
>>>  * Mime4j API is still considered unstable and is likely to change in
>>> future releases
>>>  * DOM support has known limitations and some roundtrip issues remain
>>> to be resolved
>>>  * Some low level functions are available only in the pull parser
>>> (recommended for
>>>  advanced users)
>>>
>>> I would opt for numbers 1 and 3;
>>
>> +1
>>
>>> number 2 should have been resolved
>>> sufficiently in the course of MIME4J-34..
>>
>> probably worth saying something about 2, maybe
>>
>> "The DOM API has been now been comprehensively refactored and the
>> known limitations addressed. Please report any remaining issues to
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J."
>>
>> we should probably add something about the known limitations of some
>> of the field parsing code, maybe something like
>>
>> "0.6 contains a mixture of approaches to the parsing of advanced MIME
>> field types. Limitations are known with these approaches with some
>> relatively uncommon use cases. A consistent and comprehensive rewrite
>> is planned for 0.7 which should consolidate and address these."
>>
>> - robert
>
>
> Markus, Robert
>
> Sounds very reasonable. There is no need for a complex protocol. Just go
> ahead and apply changes that you deem necessary.

ok

i've patched RELEASE_NOTES.txt. hopefully, i've addressed all the
improvements suggested.

AFACT everything's good

- robert

Mime
View raw message