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] Commented: (MIME4J-156) DOM (message) classes should not be implementation specific. Move implementation to a different package (message.impl)
Date Fri, 01 Jan 2010 16:59:54 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-156?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12795772#action_12795772
] 

Stefano Bagnara commented on MIME4J-156:
----------------------------------------

OK, I just completed DOM extraction and dependency clean up for the dom.

> 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
>
>
> 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