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 18:07:27 GMT
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 ..


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