james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: 0.6.2 or 0.7 any time soon? was Re: Incorrect line length limitation while parsing headers
Date Tue, 11 Jan 2011 15:16:41 GMT
On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 15:18 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2011/1/11 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 14:01 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> 2011/1/11 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> >> > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 09:27 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote:
> >> >> Hi there,
> >> >>
> >> >> I think if it worth it we should release 0.6.2. Release often release
> >> >> early, you know ;)
> >> >>
> >> >> Bye,
> >> >> Norman
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Folks
> >> >
> >> > I also would like to port another fix, should we decide to do another
> >> > release off the 0.6.x branch.
> >>
> >> What is the other fix? This one is not critical (I see it just like a
> >> documentation bug: either way we need that check on that field to work
> >> that way, we can't simply check the line length).
> >>
> >
> > Parsing of folded fields. The default field parser in 0.6 chokes on
> > perfectly valid fields if their body is folded.
> >
> >
> >> > I am also willing to make a push toward the 0.7 release, if no one is
> >> > going to pick up work on the API changes stared by Stefano on the trunk.
> >>
> >> I had really few time but I think I also slowed down because I never
> >> understood if what I was doing was liked or not. It takes a lot to
> >> complete stuff, so I would have liked to understand what others thinks
> >> we should do in 0.7.
> >>
> >> As an example I see sometimes we talk as 0.x versions we can do
> >> backward incompatible changes trying to reach a good api, other times
> >> it seems we instead are "stuck" to the 0.6 version because 0.6 has
> >> already a lot of users so compatibility is brought to the table.
> >>
> >> That said, I say my opinion and I expect others to say their opinions
> >> so that we can see where we can find a consensus.
> >> - I think 0.6 is not "great" as API, so I would happily break
> >> compatibility in order to provide a better api. Main thing is that the
> >> 0.6 API does not accept evolution (every non trivial feature will
> >> require a backward incompatible change).
> >> - IMO current trunk could be released as 0.7.0 with very minor change:
> >> it is far from exposing a complete api, but I find it already better
> >> than 0.6 and I have already some product depending on current trunk.
> >> We saw we proceed at a slow speed, so we should be prepared improving
> >> the API while we reach 1.0.
> >> - I guess most of changes we have in trunk are not backportable to 0.6
> >> because they have been possible by the major refactorings, but I'm not
> >> against this, if anyone sees a way.
> >>
> >> Can you state yours and also tell something more about "your" 0.7 plan?
> >>
> >
> > I think we discussed this on more than one occasion in the past. While I
> > think mime4j 'core' in 0.7 is fine, the 'dom' / 'message' stuff is not,
> 
> Yes, we discussed a couple of times, but we didn't find a solution (at
> least not one I understood)
> 
> > and the whole library is not in a releasable state at the moment.
> 
> Got it: hope you will review trunk soon to understand what changes you
> propose to make it releasable.
> 
> > And there is "my" plan:
> >
> > (1) ask people to go over issues in JIRA and decide what is in scope for
> > 0.7 and what can wait until a better day (0.8)
> 
> +1
> 
> The main causes I use trunk in production instead of 0.6 are:
> MIME4J-158 - Reduce usage of commons-logging in favor of a "Monitor" service.
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-158
> MIME4J-58 - Lenient dealing with headless messages or malformed
> header/body separation
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58
> MIME4J-153 - Headless inconsistency between MimeTokenStream and MimeStreamParser
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-153
> 
> Also the folded header stuff you mentioned (MIME4J-141 - MIME4J-146)
> 
> > (2) revisit the 'dom' and 'message' packages and try to figure out
> > whether 'model' and 'implementation' classes in their present form make
> > sense.
> 
> +1
> 
> > In my option, many of them do not.
> 
> They are the result of my limited use case: they work fine in my use
> cases (jDKIM + proprietary product).
> We need more real use cases to "shape" them, but I trust you (and you
> probably have good uses cases too), so I will wait for your review.
> 
> Stefano
> 

Stefano, for the love of God Almighty, what else am I supposed to do? I
pointed out a number of times those things that do not seem to make any
sense what so ever, like HeaderImpl extending Header, which is a
CONCRETE class, or abstract Multipart where the only abstract aspects
are preamble / epilogue related methods.  

OK. I will create a copy of mime4j on github and make _minimal_ changes
to your code just to resolve the most glaring WTFs in the API and
present it for review. Simply listing things that I disagree with does
not seem to bring us anywhere anymore.

Cheers

Oleg


Mime
View raw message