james-mime4j-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Norman Maurer <norman.mau...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: As far as I am concerned 0.7 is ready
Date Mon, 18 Jul 2011 19:38:53 GMT
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...

Bye,
Norman


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
>>
>

Mime
View raw message