Mailing-List: contact mime4j-dev-help@james.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of norman.maurer@googlemail.com
 designates 209.85.210.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAKrGPjz3oHOX=xqJpw5_tHy4etSzYh-djXEwozFxT=47CWemkw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1310733127.26108.39.camel@ubuntu>
	<4E2035C8.6020608@apache.org>
	<1310733947.26108.43.camel@ubuntu>
	<CAKrGPjw=iS6b1hf_P-mhAYpSvCQ037ckycFJW5J90hpPCbO9JA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1310981180.2477.12.camel@ubuntu>
	<4E24011F.3050706@apache.org>
	<CAHVBJ+mxkmmawhu2bF=u3rDR90TQHXU2VRoS=9PTvzTqVv6j4Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<1310987975.2477.23.camel@ubuntu>
	<CAHVBJ+m9a1sHhfTcOkWU1nfyJcGWcjuCJuHqj4zBw7p_Lee2ew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKrGPjxQjCYHZUnxsGfZpj+M33K1TXSmWc+JPm2E+YsaGMv+=A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHVBJ+kXiBcswNw+CM4dRKp9sVCEp+U_3yjkWvQN0zSwegVfUA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAKrGPjz3oHOX=xqJpw5_tHy4etSzYh-djXEwozFxT=47CWemkw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 21:38:53 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAKrGPjxpnsJWNhoUaEjF_zNVmjn0m+ZkFi0JDJxDV+ZTOTD52g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: As far as I am concerned 0.7 is ready
From: Norman Maurer <norman.maurer@googlemail.com>
To: mime4j-dev@james.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>>
>