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 19:48:34 GMT
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).


> 2011/7/18 Norman Maurer <norman.maurer@googlemail.com>:
>> Maybe use some extra interface which just contains the property names.
>> It just looks ugly to not have them somewhere as a static field the
>> dev can use to set this kind of stuff. Typing the name is kind of
>> error phrone ..
>> Bye,
>> Norman
>> 2011/7/18 Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org>:
>>> 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

View raw message