Noel J. Bergman wrote:
Mark R. Diggory asked:
Shouldn't [mime] be dependent on JAF?

Why?

Looks like others already stated this, but here's my why/why not:


why: it's an established API that doesn't have anything to do with MIME handling. JAF handles creating Java objects from streams. (This was listed as one of the tasks for this initiative, and I don't think it really belongs).

why not: it's really really painful to use. It has a a decent idea of a data handler, but it's just way to complicated

I would prefer JAF and otherwise object instantiation from streams be unrelated to mime. The reason it current works this way is so you can "nest" MimeMultipart objects, but I think there's a better way to wrap this.

--
Serge Knystautas
President
Lokitech >>> software . strategy . design >> http://www.lokitech.com
p. 301.656.5501
e. [EMAIL PROTECTED]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]



Reply via email to