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 18:24:07 GMT
Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
>> 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
>> merged.
>> 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
> DefaultBodyDescriptor would reintroduce the field parsing dependency
> to the stream package. 

Unless I am missing something, I can't see any mime4j dependencies other 
than on 'util' and 'stream'
import org.apache.james.mime4j.stream.BodyDescriptor;
import org.apache.james.mime4j.stream.MutableBodyDescriptor;
import org.apache.james.mime4j.stream.RawField;
import org.apache.james.mime4j.util.MimeUtil;
I do not see why this class cannot be moved to 'stream' without 
introducing cyclic dependencies.

So, unless we say that we don't care about
> separation between stream parser and field parsing, there is no way to
> use stream alone. 

I just do not want to end up in a situation when 'stream' package simply 
cannot be used without 'parser' stuff thus rendering the whole idea of 
separating the two pointless.

> Thank you for reviewing, and let me know if you prefer the older
> packaging or the newer one (cycleclean vs
> cycleclean-pre-packagerenames)
> Stefano

I am fine with the new package names, hence my +1 to merge.


View raw message