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: [cycleclean] minor naming tweaks; was Re: [cycleclean] branch review and questions
Date Fri, 08 Jan 2010 17:01:26 GMT
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. 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. Currently the BodyDescriptor interface is the
"service" that let the "stream" parser to describe the body without
having any knowledge about what fields describe them and how they are
parsed. Not sure this is the best solution we can find, but this is
how it currently works and how it currently allow us to keep
separation between the 2 packages.

About Maximal and Default BodyDescriptors I didn't studied the
details, but currently my opinion is that we don't need 2 of them.
MaximalBodyDescriptor is already lazy parsing additional fields, so
even if you just need the defaultbodydescriptor stuff performances
would not be hit by using the Maximal.

> (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.

I'm on windows too :-( ... I remember I worked around this issue in
older mime4j versions, too... I'll have a look at it.

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

Whenever I move some stuff around the javadocs are not always
correctly updated, so I just wanted to collect more thoughts about the
merging and then deal with this details.

Thank you for reviewing, and let me know if you prefer the older
packaging or the newer one (cycleclean vs

View raw message