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: dom / message API inconsistency
Date Mon, 28 Jun 2010 21:50:23 GMT
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