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 Wed, 13 Jan 2010 17:42:34 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

I moved the DefaultBodyDescriptor, and also some method from
MimeTokenStream to BasicTokenStream. I'd like to leave the Maximal to
Full change for a later step (after merge), but I agree that "Maximal"
is not a good name.

> (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 double checked this with a new checkout (windows and freebsd) and it
worked. I guess this is because you have old resources already checked
out and they differs from real resources only for newlines so svn is
not correclty updating them.
Can you check this on a clean checkout? Can you tell me a specific
test that doesn't work (and maybe send me a zip with the original and
expected test files so I can bit-compare them with mine?) ?

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

Maybe we can fix them once we agree that the branch is to be merged.
We had no comments from Markus and last comment from Robert was "I
will veto any merge attempt".. so I'd like to wait some day to see if
they will take into consideration reviewing the code.


View raw message