james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Markus Wiederkehr <markus.wiederk...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Address list parser expects unfolded field body. Does that make sense?
Date Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:02:12 GMT
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> wrote:
> Markus Wiederkehr wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>>>> Markus et al
>>>> The address list parser currently chokes on folded field values that are
>>>> otherwise perfectly valid. That seems somewhat illogical to me. It
>>>> really
>>>> took me a while to figure out what was wrong with the address list until
>>>> I
>>>> stumbled upon a commend about the parser expecting unfolded fields. The
>>>> very
>>>> cryptic exception message did not really help either.
>>>> What is the reason for this restriction? It is because folded values are
>>>> difficult to parse with jjtree? Should not we unfold field values
>>>> automatically prior to feeding them to the parser?
>> As for the reason, I don't know, that was before my time..
> And also before mine
>>>> Oleg
>>> DelegatingFieldParser#parse method does not automatically unfold the
>>> field
>>> body, which actually seems like a bug to me. What is the expected
>>> behavior
>>> of this method?
>>> From what I see the unfolding happens in
>> AbstractField.parse(ByteSequence, String) at line 155. The call
>> hierarchy leads to AbstractField.parse(ByteSequence) and
>> MessageBuilder.field(Field)..
>> I guess you should use AbstractField.parse(ByteSequence).
> That still leaves us with DefaultFieldParser and DelegatingFieldParser that
> produce incorrect results, at least in my opinion.

Are you referring to DelegatingFieldParser.parse(String, String,
ByteSequence)? That method implements FieldParser#parse which can only
be considered to be internal API in my opinion. Well maybe not quite,
a user might want to implement a custom FieldParser but I don't think
this method is intended to be invoked directly.

Generally you don't have the name, body and raw byte sequence at hand.
Usually name and body are computed from the raw byte sequence or vice
versa. So what's wrong with using AbstractField.parse(ByteSequence)

> Are there any objections to changing the behavior of these classes?

I don't see the point. What's your use case?


> Oleg
>> Markus

View raw message