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: As far as I am concerned 0.7 is ready
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2011 17:57:51 GMT
2011/7/18 Norman Maurer <norman.maurer@googlemail.com>:
>Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>> My main concern is that "dom" api is a lot limited unless you use
>> "setAttribute" with some magic parameter that you expect to work like
>> our default implementation does. This doesn't sound good to me for an
>> API.
>>
>> That said I'm fine with a 0.7 release from current trunk. It's not
>> perfect, but a step forward from previous releases.
>
> i think it would sense to expose those property names as public static
> fields. are you guys ok with it? If so I will commit the this and
> after that start the release process...

Don't know: in what class would you publish them? If they have to be
part of the interface then why not to add specific/typed setters for
each property? Instead if they have to be in the implementation I
don't think it worth using them as (if used) it would break even more
the service locator pattern.

Stefano

Mime
View raw message