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: As far as I am concerned 0.7 is ready
Date Tue, 19 Jul 2011 09:15:28 GMT
On Tue, 2011-07-19 at 11:00 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2011/7/19 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 22:18 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> 2011/7/18 Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org>:
> >> > On Mon, 2011-07-18 at 21:48 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> >> >> 2011/7/18 Norman Maurer <norman.maurer@googlemail.com>:
> >> >> > Hi there,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > just to be more clear. I'm not very strong with it, so if others
> >> >> > prefer we can just release it like it is...
> >> >>
> >> >> I leave this to you and Oleg. Either way it is not an elegant solution
> >> >> and we'll need to fix that part of the api (configuration + advanced
> >> >> features) in future releases (IMO).
> >> >>
> >> >> Stefano
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for being blunt but MessageServiceFactory / ServiceLocator stuff
> >> > was not of my making. I had nothing to do with it and have nothing to
> >> > contribute there.
> >>
> >> What we have now is the result of what I did in a first place and how
> >> you changed it to make it pass your review.
> >>
> >> You wanted to remove the abstract classes in favor of interfaces for
> >> parser/builders and wanted to remove that methods I added (e.g:
> >> setDecodeMonitor was a method of the public api abstract class), so
> >> you can't say "I had nothing to do with it", now ;-)
> >>
> >
> > Stefano
> >
> > MessageServiceFactory is an abstract class, not an interface. So, I have
> > no idea what you are talking about. Feel free to add whatever methods to
> > that class you please.
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/james/mime4j/trunk/dom/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/dom/MessageBuilder.java?revision=923012&view=markup&pathrev=1137643
> 
> You see we had an abstract MessageBuilder (now it is an interface) and
> that abstract class exposed setDecodeMonitor.
> 
> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/james/mime4j/trunk/dom/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/dom/MessageBuilder.java?r1=958717&r2=1063904&pathrev=1137643
> 
> You see this revision is when YOU changed from abstract class to
> interface and removed the setDecodeMonitor. I'm talking of this very
> method and that very class/interface.
> 
> I simply found that after your refactorings I was not able anymore to
> use the decodemonitor (while previously I used them and used in a
> typed manner), so I asked if this was intended and how you wanted me
> to deal with it (I know how I would like it to work, but we already
> saw that my solution is not acceptable to you, so I simply asked you
> what was acceptable and it sounded weird when you replied that you had
> nothing to do with this stuff).
> 
> I now added the DecodeMonitor as a setAttribute for the factory as for
> your request but it was not in the factory previously.
> 
> If adding typed methods to the MessageServiceFactory (for things we
> now have in setAttribute) is acceptable to you then I'll vet them and
> add methods I think are to there stay for 0.8. It is an abstract class
> so we can add this new methods in future with no backward
> compatibility issues.
> 
> Hope this explains "what I'm talking about" :-)
> 

Not really. What does this all have to do with the brokenness of
MessageServiceFactory / ServiceLocator stuff and the original issue
raised by Norman?

Oleg


Mime
View raw message