james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norman Maurer <nor...@apache.org>
Subject Re: dom / message API inconsistency
Date Tue, 29 Jun 2010 05:09:25 GMT
I will try to See whats needed in terms of imap....

Bye
Norman

2010/6/28, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>:
> 2010/6/25 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
>> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 15:16 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>>> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>> > - IMO priority is releasing 0.7.
>>> > - I'll be on holiday next week and generally busy, so you'll have to
>>> > take care of 0.7 release
>>> > - Do whatever you think is appropriate in order to release 0.7 (if you
>>> > need to merge dom to message simply do that). Generally speaking I'd
>>> > like httpclient to keep using mime4j, so shape it the way it works for
>>> > you. My only requirement for 0.7 is not to reintroduce package
>>> > dependency cycles).
>>> >
>>> > If you, instead, decide to leave stuff as is then later (0.8) we can
>>> > add a MessageBuilderFactory/MessageBuilder to the dom package and make
>>> > them default (via property file) to MessageImpl from the message
>>> > package. After this addition an external user should not have the need
>>> > to work with the message/field packages (and in case it still happen
>>> > we should consider adding methods to the builder or to the other dom
>>> > classes).
>>> >
>>> > Stefano
>>>
>>> Personally I am not in favor of cutting a new release unless we are done
>>> moving stuff around. If you need time, take your time.
>>>
>>> Oleg
>>
>> Stefano,
>>
>> It has been almost 5 months. Is there still any change of dom / message
>> API getting fixed in a foreseeable future?
>>
>> Oleg
>
> Hi Oleg, unfortunately I had very few time for mime4j and currently
> I'm busy on datawarehousing stuff, so nothing near James :-(
>
> As you probably saw a couple of months ago I introduced a basic
> factory for the dom api and I refactored jdkim (and some internal
> projects) to use that methods (and tests everything worked as
> expected). I just saw I had some minor uncommitted change, too, so I
> took some minutes to run the test suites for mime4j and downstreams
> and commit them. Few weeks ago I tried checking out james-imap to try
> upgrading mime4j and see what we needed on that side (and if the
> upgrade didn't break everthing), but imap is changing too fast for my
> current pace (at this time I see failures but I'm not sure they are
> not in imap itself)
>
> For my use cases (read only DOM) it works fine, but It doesn't sound
> as a complete/stable api, if you ask me. It's better than ever in
> past, but not complete. In fact we are calling it 0.7-SNAPSHOT, not
> 1.0.
>
> I think the current code represents a step forward from 0.6, but I
> still think releasing is the priority (as it was 5 months ago) but I
> can't afford the process right now, so until someone will jump in for
> this task I'll keep adding my small improvements to the code when I
> happen to have them ready.
>
> If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the code or anyone wants
> to drive a 0.7 release (including whatever content or even reverting
> to any point in past) I'm happy to discuss it in my spare time.
>
> Now that we have modules we could concentrate on stabilizing the
> "core" module and leave the dom module as an evolving platform. I'm
> not an "advanced user" of the core module, so I don't know what is
> needed to make it better (we already did the critical improvements in
> current trunk).
>
> Now it's my turn for the questions ;-) . What about your plans?
>
> Stefano
>

Mime
View raw message