On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 3:39 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote: >> Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >>> >>> The newly introduced interface mime4j.parser.Field misses some of the >>> method that where previously available in class mime4j.class.Field. >>> >>> The methods are still there but the user has to cast to AbstractField >>> (with instanceof check of course) to gain access to them.. >>> >>> Now the question is should we pull up some of the methods, remove them >>> or move them to other places? >>> >>> IMO there are three categories of methods: >>> >>> 1) the static methods parse(ByteSequence), parse(String) and getParser() >>> >>> These are still accessible but Field.parse() felt natural whereas >>> AbstractField.parse() feels clumsy in my opinon.. I would prefer a >>> separate class for these. > > +1
I'll look into it tomorrow. The rest is done.. Markus > >>> 2) isValidField(), getParseException() >>> >>> Pull up? >>> >> >> I personally would rather keep Field interface as generic ad simple as >> possible. I agree static parsing methods should go to a separate class. >> isValidField(), getParseException() do not belong to Field, in my opinion. > > IMHO they don't really seem to belong in AbstractField either. perhaps > a subinterface or empty abstract class (ParsedField?) would be better. > >>> 3) isContentType(), isSubject(), isFrom() and isTo() >>> >>> Feels arbitrary and incomplete.. remove? >>> >> >> +1 to remove. > > +1 > > - robert >
