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 refactoring; was Re: 0.6.2 or 0.7 any time soon?
Date Tue, 18 Jan 2011 21:41:09 GMT
2011/1/18 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> I understand the downside of having a pure interface based API. However,
> you seem to be very keen to position mime4j not only as a utility for
> parsing and building mime messages but also as an abstract Document
> Object Model with different / alternative implementations. I just do not
> see how one can honestly call the existing code in trunk an abstract
> Object Model if the only aspect that is abstract is field parsing. We
> should either drop the pretense at having an abstract DOM in mime4j and
> revert to the state existed before your changes or actually make an
> effort to define a truly abstract model even if that means more effort.
> I am very fine with just reverting to the old state, by the way.
> So, what shall I do?

Go ahead with your plan.

I agree that DOM is incomplete now.

I don't think that we'll see alternative implementations, but having a
good DOM api is also a way to stabilize an interface and put a clear
limit in what can be changed and what cannot be changed.

I would like before 1.0 to tell people feel free to refer .dom.
classes, don't touch .field./.message./.storage./ .

Having no direct dependencies from dom to the implementation is a way
to be sure this happen.

>> [...] BTW I'm just loud thinking, just go ahead with
>> your plan :-)
> I am going to get there shortly. I just prefer to make potentially
> contentious changes in small, incremental steps, so that they are easier
> to review and agree / disagree upon.

I understand. I'm impatient to see your changes :-)

Happy hacking

View raw message