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 and OSGi
Date Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:23:53 GMT
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Wim Jongman <wim.jongman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> mime4j package already contains Bundle-/Import directives in the
>>> MANIFEST file. What else is needed?
>>> Stefano
>> That depends on your needs/commitment to OSGi. For instance, I see that all
>> packages are exported where only API should be exported. I will study the
>> mime4j software and get back with recommendations of osgi content in the
>> manifest
> In my opinion the following packages should not be exported because
> they are automatically generated from JavaCC sources and are not part
> of the public API:
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.address.parser
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.contentdisposition.parser
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.contenttype.parser
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.datetime.parser
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.language.parser
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.mimeversion.parser
> org.apache.james.mime4j.field.structured.parser
> Or in other word *.parser except org.apache.james.mime4j.parser.

IIRC some of this stuff is used downstream by james but perhaps it's
not longer necessary

> I tried to exclude these packages from the Javadoc by adding exclude
> directives to the POM but for some reason they seem to have made it
> into the current release..
> Maybe we should also emphasize the fact that these packages are not
> public by renaming them into o.a.j.mime4j.private.* or something like
> that.. Opinions?

IMO any code that isn't intended to be used by downstream projects
should be packaged as you suggest

- robert

View raw message