Stefano Bagnara wrote:
2010/1/8 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>:
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
DefaultBodyDescriptor would reintroduce the field parsing dependency
to the stream package.
Unless I am missing something, I can't see any mime4j dependencies other
than on 'util' and 'stream'
---
import org.apache.james.mime4j.stream.BodyDescriptor;
import org.apache.james.mime4j.stream.MutableBodyDescriptor;
import org.apache.james.mime4j.stream.RawField;
import org.apache.james.mime4j.util.MimeUtil;
---
I do not see why this class cannot be moved to 'stream' without
introducing cyclic dependencies.
So, unless we say that we don't care about
separation between stream parser and field parsing, there is no way to
use stream alone.
I just do not want to end up in a situation when 'stream' package simply
cannot be used without 'parser' stuff thus rendering the whole idea of
separating the two pointless.
Thank you for reviewing, and let me know if you prefer the older
packaging or the newer one (cycleclean vs
cycleclean-pre-packagerenames)
Stefano
I am fine with the new package names, hence my +1 to merge.
Oleg
