Return-Path: 
 <mime4j-dev-return-314-apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive=james.apache.org@james.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: (qmail 19871 invoked from network); 16 Mar 2009 16:24:37 -0000
Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2)
  by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Mar 2009 16:24:37 -0000
Received: (qmail 65149 invoked by uid 500); 16 Mar 2009 16:24:37 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-james-mime4j-dev-archive@james.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65124 invoked by uid 500); 16 Mar 2009 16:24:37 -0000
Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:mime4j-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:mime4j-dev@james.apache.org>
List-Id: <mime4j-dev.james.apache.org>
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received: (qmail 65113 invoked by uid 99); 16 Mar 2009 16:24:37 -0000
Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:24:37 -0700
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.128.186 as permitted sender)
Received: from [209.85.128.186] (HELO fk-out-0910.google.com) (209.85.128.186)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:24:28 +0000
Received: by fk-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id e30so1585059fke.4
        for <mime4j-dev@james.apache.org>;
 Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references
         :date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type
         :content-transfer-encoding;
        bh=cQzB/26on8aQyLeLrutszWkiIdKmO6h5wIDuVPHtNy0=;
        b=U7JhtDPXWaqBeI04gtcI2uxiGTCKnczRTQry+3xI0em7kjxND9E6k7tpf9P2KNr1zO
         1HEpE9L29J5+0AZDyyT0onYCcQ6JeoXAHYnqdCtd7JC1hHQ82xXummNQAoAXeST33neM
         rNBpl227JXvBiJn8a2hVGVoi3uU8vYK5iv00Y=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=UvKqT9EtjpdsrCGe1Wc2Hna2qI7J4QZfmq0MZXhMxnQLSXg3212LHlKCYr5tgQwCzz
         TFf7tjwd2C+EmgruFc7XUPQNcZGSbDB72uv6isst/tiSes4ppS4HpjOGJFADrN9lrGp7
         pzMOh1N9Rp0jLveZoZMuMsexCQ0QZfFIHQb0s=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.107.76 with SMTP id a12mr3416757fap.29.1237220648274;
 Mon,
	16 Mar 2009 09:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <9ceb1e7a0903160834m3bb46820g6e2eaef55fbf5950@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ceb1e7a0903100413q15f370d2l5fbbc7b94272f2ae@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49B6518C.5000606@bago.org>
	 <9ceb1e7a0903160510m5e0cea6h4a6a337346957ef6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a92573960903160552i5f778f26h6baddacaaf9ed33a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <9ceb1e7a0903160834m3bb46820g6e2eaef55fbf5950@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:24:08 +0100
Message-ID: <a92573960903160924o7bdb0e57sabddca997384f945@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mime4j and OSGi
From: Markus Wiederkehr <markus.wiederkehr@gmail.com>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org

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 f=
or
> three levels of package visibility.
>
> =C2=A0 1. API, =C2=A0dom.organization.soandso
> =C2=A0 2. Not intended to be API dom.organization.internal.soandso
> =C2=A0 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.

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.

Everything else is public IMO..

Markus