james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [cycleclean] minor naming tweaks; was Re: [cycleclean] branch review and questions
Date Fri, 08 Jan 2010 16:42:05 GMT
On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:19 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> > I spent more time working with your code. The refactoring of
> > MimeTokenStream makes good sense. However, the unfortunate choice of
> > package and class names sent a completely wrong message.
> Happy to hear this! So, maybe I'll take the time to apply some package
> name changes to let the correct message pass throught.
> > It led me to
> > believe one package was meant to represent public API with impl package
> > being implementation of that API. If the following changes can be made
> > to package / class naming I can happily vote +1 to merging down the
> > entire branch. Smaller issues such as #unread() method modality can be
> > dealt with on the trunk.
> >

With so many classes moved to different packages an iterative merge
would just be too hard. I am +1 to merging the entire branch down to
trunk. Remaining issues can be dealt with once the branch has been

Minor stuff:

(1) I also would like to propose a few minor changes / renames. Ideally,
I would like the 'steam' package to be fully usable out of the box. So,
it would be good if DefaultBodyDescriptor was moved to 'steam' and
renamed to BasicBodyDescriptor for consistency. I also think
FullBodyDescriptor is a better name for MaximalBodyDescriptor

(2) I have a number of test cases failing on me when run on Windows. I
think mismatch in line delimiters is the cause. I would be great to have
this fixed before the merge. All test cases used to work on Windows.

(3) Tons of javadocs need to be reviewed / updated. I am willing to


View raw message