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: 0.6.2 or 0.7 any time soon? was Re: Incorrect line length limitation while parsing headers
Date Tue, 11 Jan 2011 18:17:17 GMT
Com'on guys calm down..

@Oleg:
Please just start your work on trunk or a branch inside apache. This
way we will still be able to see your commits as notifications etc. I
don't see why you want to take the code to github. Just work here..

Bye,
Norman

2011/1/11 Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>:
> 2011/1/11 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
>> 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 don't get what I said to upset you. I'm sorry if you thought I'm on
> the way. I keep repeating you just commit your changes, just do
> whatever you want on svn and I will be happy. You don't commit
> anything so I try discussing. I don't know what you prefer me to do.
> I'm just trying to understand how to evolve mime4j.
>
>> 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.
>
> Why can't you simply work on trunk or on a branch here in our svn? I
> think I encouraged you multiple times to simply do this, I don't
> really understand why you aswer me like I'm trying to stop you.
> My preference is for you to use trunk. We use CTR, so go ahead and I
> hope you will be happy if I review what you do.
>
> You are a committer, so we already trust you, so you should no fear
> working in trunk. I do this when I have ideas and I expect others to
> simply do the same. If what I committed in trunk is blocking evolution
> then just revert it, otherwise make your changes: whatever you feel
> appropriate.
>
> We will ask questions when we need answers :-)
>
> Stefano
>
> PS: if something I said/did makes you angry just explain me please. I
> hope this is just something related to "translation" and the fact we
> don't speak the same language natively.
>

Mime
View raw message