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: Interface Field
Date Fri, 27 Feb 2009 14:39:30 GMT
On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> 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.

+1

>> 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.

IMHO they don't really seem to belong in AbstractField either. perhaps
a subinterface or empty abstract class (ParsedField?) would be better.

>> 3) isContentType(), isSubject(), isFrom() and isTo()
>>
>> Feels arbitrary and incomplete.. remove?
>>
>
> +1 to remove.

+1

- robert

Mime
View raw message