james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Stefano Bagnara (JIRA)" <mime4j-...@james.apache.org>
Subject [jira] Updated: (MIME4J-156) DOM (message) classes should not be implementation specific. Move implementation to a different package (message.impl)
Date Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:01:54 GMT

     [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]

Stefano Bagnara updated MIME4J-156:
-----------------------------------

    Attachment: graph-mime4j-package.png

This is the current dependency graph (simplified by grouping the field.*.parser packages).
Black lines are transitive reduced dependencies (grey lines full package dependencies).

As you can see DOM does not have any dependency.

Further improvements to the dependency tree belongs to another issue, so I hope to close this
one soon.

> DOM (message) classes should not be implementation specific. Move implementation to a
different package (message.impl)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: MIME4J-156
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-156
>             Project: JAMES Mime4j
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>    Affects Versions: 0.6
>            Reporter: Stefano Bagnara
>            Assignee: Stefano Bagnara
>             Fix For: 0.8
>
>         Attachments: graph-mime4j-package.png
>
>
> Let's start "splitting" message between generic interfaces/abstract classes and specific
implementations based on mime4j modules (parser).
> Abstract classes vs Interface is a tricky issue wrt api. I think the important thing
now is to separate implementation details from design/api.

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.


Mime
View raw message