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 19:33:19 GMT
2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> 2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
>>> 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.
>>
>> It is a detail, but I don't agree with this reasoning. packages help
>> defining the project structure and the component dependencies.
>> Whenever it is possible to put evidence on the dependencies of a group
>> of classes and their concerns it is a good practice to do that. With
>> your reasoning abstract packages (interfaces and abstract classes
>> only) wouldn't exists because they cannot be used alone!
>>
>
> There is nothing that makes 'stream' package abstract. BasicMimeTokenStream
> is a concrete class and therefore I think 'stream' package should have a
> concrete MutableBodyDescriptor implementation

It was just an example, to prove that the rule to make packages is not
"if they are useful alone" but there are other motivations (of course
in my opinion). BTW I don't care/need to convince you on this. I'm
fine with moving the class by now.

> At the same time I think ContentHandler and AbstractContentHandler should go
> to 'parser' package. They are not used anywhere in 'stream' and even
> conceptually do not belong there. They belong to 'parser'.

I'm fine with this change. It's just a matter of defining the approach
and trying to be consistent. IMO this was only a first step, and we'll
need more changes once we decide how we want to deal with dom
operations and field parsing (see the first message of this thread).

Mime
View raw message