Let's do #2 and everyone will be happy... -- dims
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:48 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 10:32 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> Oleg, >> >> Yes, we need to do exactly what you mention first. >> >> "The whole trouble is that Axiom currently does not allow for multiple >> implementations of MIME processing as it does not have an abstract API >> for that to start with." >> >> -- dims >> > > Davanum, > > Frankly, I could not care less about the underlying implementation, as > long as the Axiom API enabled me (1) parse and build MIME messages > without buffering various parts in memory (2) replace certain bits If > the default implementation did not quite meet the specific application > requirements. Currently neither 1 nor 2 is the case. Hence my attempt at > fixing both issues. I chose mime4j because I thought Axiom project might > want to depend on a generic library rather than maintaining its own > implementation. > > Oleg > > > >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:16 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >> > On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 08:39 -0500, Davanum Srinivas wrote: >> >> Let's please keep it as a parallel optional implementation. just like >> >> we have so many components with specific interfaces and multiple >> >> implementations. >> > >> > Davanum >> > >> > The whole trouble is that Axiom currently does not allow for multiple >> > implementations of MIME processing as it does not have an abstract API >> > for that to start with. >> > >> > >> >> If/when we finally see the promised results, all we >> >> need to do is switch the default to the other implementation. >> >> >> > >> > I am not sure I understand exactly what kind of results you are >> > referring to. The patch (1) provides an abstract API for MIME processing >> > and (2) eliminates in memory buffering of SOAP envelops. The Mime4j >> > based parser is currently ~15% slower than the existing implementation, >> > but I _personally_ see this a reasonable trade-off for a smaller memory >> > footprint and a better API. So, I do not think I made any promises I am >> > still to deliver upon. >> > >> > Anyways, this patch is just not worth the trouble. Scrap it >> > >> > Oleg >> > >> >> thanks, >> >> dims >> >> >> >> On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 8:15 AM, Davanum Srinivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I am asking for the MIME4J implementation to be an option. Not the >> >> > default. Default should be what is in right now. >> >> > >> >> > thanks, >> >> > dims >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:41 AM, Paul Fremantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >>> Asankha et al >> >> >>> >> >> >>> The patch was meant as a replacement for the existing implementation. >> >> >>> It >> >> >>> is pointless to have two MIME frameworks in Axiom. Just forget about >> >> >>> the >> >> >>> patch. >> >> >>> >> >> >>> Oleg >> >> >> >> >> >> -1! I think we should evaluate this patch just like any other. I'm not >> >> >> clear what Dims is asking I'm afraid, but I certainly don't want to >> >> >> forget about the patch. >> >> >> >> >> >> Paul >> >> >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> > >> >> >> > > -- Davanum Srinivas :: http://davanum.wordpress.com --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
