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 17:50:27 GMT
On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Wim Jongman <wim.jongman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <snip>
>>
>> Not related to mime4j there should be a new naming convention providing for
>> three levels of package visibility.
>>
>>   1. API,  dom.organization.soandso
>>   2. Not intended to be API dom.organization.internal.soandso
>>   3. Absolutely not API dom.organization.private.soandso
>
> Okay, then I'd say the o.a.j.mime4j.field.*.parser packages should
> definitely be private.

we would need to ensure that appropriate facades exist but that's
probably not a bad thing

> Candidates for internal would be:
>  * org.apache.james.mime4j.codec
>  * org.apache.james.mime4j.io
>  * org.apache.james.mime4j.util
>
> Maybe o.a.j.mime4j.io should even be private, I'm not sure.

would need to check for usage downstream in james, but in general agreement

- robert

Mime
View raw message