On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 11:19 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > 2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>: > > I spent more time working with your code. The refactoring of > > MimeTokenStream makes good sense. However, the unfortunate choice of > > package and class names sent a completely wrong message. > > Happy to hear this! So, maybe I'll take the time to apply some package > name changes to let the correct message pass throught. > > > It led me to > > believe one package was meant to represent public API with impl package > > being implementation of that API. If the following changes can be made > > to package / class naming I can happily vote +1 to merging down the > > entire branch. Smaller issues such as #unread() method modality can be > > dealt with on the trunk. > >
With so many classes moved to different packages an iterative merge would just be too hard. I am +1 to merging the entire branch down to trunk. Remaining issues can be dealt with once the branch has been merged. Minor stuff: (1) I also would like to propose a few minor changes / renames. Ideally, I would like the 'steam' package to be fully usable out of the box. So, it would be good if DefaultBodyDescriptor was moved to 'steam' and renamed to BasicBodyDescriptor for consistency. I also think FullBodyDescriptor is a better name for MaximalBodyDescriptor (2) I have a number of test cases failing on me when run on Windows. I think mismatch in line delimiters is the cause. I would be great to have this fixed before the merge. All test cases used to work on Windows. (3) Tons of javadocs need to be reviewed / updated. I am willing to help. Oleg
