Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.218.164 as permitted sender)
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=PuzLSiGv8XomCwEbvXfSyGyDTi4q2wcCrROHA4GZ/TfADH/frnVKmMTWpzIxGDRRBh
         SS9YGsfITdX1heeWVV/niZUkDBg2msCQYLJRMp6s/oQUqTnU/wY4m/E37ADzr2Vypp3h
         BoR83XRIXpn+wIBEobsPQxHU3O6r2DCXRplDc=
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <a92573960903160552i5f778f26h6baddacaaf9ed33a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ceb1e7a0903100413q15f370d2l5fbbc7b94272f2ae@mail.gmail.com>
	 <49B6518C.5000606@bago.org>
	 <9ceb1e7a0903160510m5e0cea6h4a6a337346957ef6@mail.gmail.com>
	 <a92573960903160552i5f778f26h6baddacaaf9ed33a@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 2009 13:23:53 +0000
Message-ID: <f470f68e0903160623o44d4811eqd9616652b30b7709@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: mime4j and OSGi
From: Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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