james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [jira] Resolved: (MIME4J-146) [possible backward incompatibility] Make sure "body" is always unfolded, "raw" is always folded, both in RawField and ParsedFields.
Date Mon, 28 Dec 2009 23:51:17 GMT
2009/12/29 Robert Burrell Donkin <robertburrelldonkin@gmail.com>:
> On Sun, Dec 27, 2009 at 7:45 PM, Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)
> <mime4j-dev@james.apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-146?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
>>
>> Stefano Bagnara resolved MIME4J-146.
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>>    Resolution: Fixed
>>
>> IMO this works as expected now.
>> All tests still pass.
>> If you have external code depending on the previous behaviour please provide a testcase
so that we can discuss the need of body to be unfolded in the parser and not by RawField.
>
> i'm worried that this kind of change will break IMAP and/or jsieve in
> a way that's really hard to fix. this will really suck for james since
> we'll have to fork a known good version of mime4j. if someone could
> run the IMAP and JSieve build after any incompatible semantic change
> then at least there'd be a chance that the regression would be
> understood.

Well, there was already changes wrt folding with MIME4J-141 so the
compatibility issue was already open. Did you check imap/jsieve after
MIME4J-141 was changed? All of mime4j testcases passed before
MIME4J-141, after MIME4J-141 and after MIME4J-146. IMHO if external
code is "break in a way that's really hard to fix" then we should have
testcases for them. If you already have any pointer about your worries
this will help adding tests.

As far as I can tell neither IMAP or Jsieve do care about
RawField.getBody and I'd say that if they even call getBody they
expect the unfolded data (that is how it is handled now).

Stefano

Mime
View raw message