I will try to See whats needed in terms of imap.... Bye Norman
2010/6/28, Stefano Bagnara <[email protected]>: > 2010/6/25 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>: >> On Fri, 2010-02-12 at 15:16 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: >>> Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>> > - IMO priority is releasing 0.7. >>> > - I'll be on holiday next week and generally busy, so you'll have to >>> > take care of 0.7 release >>> > - Do whatever you think is appropriate in order to release 0.7 (if you >>> > need to merge dom to message simply do that). Generally speaking I'd >>> > like httpclient to keep using mime4j, so shape it the way it works for >>> > you. My only requirement for 0.7 is not to reintroduce package >>> > dependency cycles). >>> > >>> > If you, instead, decide to leave stuff as is then later (0.8) we can >>> > add a MessageBuilderFactory/MessageBuilder to the dom package and make >>> > them default (via property file) to MessageImpl from the message >>> > package. After this addition an external user should not have the need >>> > to work with the message/field packages (and in case it still happen >>> > we should consider adding methods to the builder or to the other dom >>> > classes). >>> > >>> > Stefano >>> >>> Personally I am not in favor of cutting a new release unless we are done >>> moving stuff around. If you need time, take your time. >>> >>> Oleg >> >> Stefano, >> >> It has been almost 5 months. Is there still any change of dom / message >> API getting fixed in a foreseeable future? >> >> Oleg > > Hi Oleg, unfortunately I had very few time for mime4j and currently > I'm busy on datawarehousing stuff, so nothing near James :-( > > As you probably saw a couple of months ago I introduced a basic > factory for the dom api and I refactored jdkim (and some internal > projects) to use that methods (and tests everything worked as > expected). I just saw I had some minor uncommitted change, too, so I > took some minutes to run the test suites for mime4j and downstreams > and commit them. Few weeks ago I tried checking out james-imap to try > upgrading mime4j and see what we needed on that side (and if the > upgrade didn't break everthing), but imap is changing too fast for my > current pace (at this time I see failures but I'm not sure they are > not in imap itself) > > For my use cases (read only DOM) it works fine, but It doesn't sound > as a complete/stable api, if you ask me. It's better than ever in > past, but not complete. In fact we are calling it 0.7-SNAPSHOT, not > 1.0. > > I think the current code represents a step forward from 0.6, but I > still think releasing is the priority (as it was 5 months ago) but I > can't afford the process right now, so until someone will jump in for > this task I'll keep adding my small improvements to the code when I > happen to have them ready. > > If anyone has suggestions on how to improve the code or anyone wants > to drive a 0.7 release (including whatever content or even reverting > to any point in past) I'm happy to discuss it in my spare time. > > Now that we have modules we could concentrate on stabilizing the > "core" module and leave the dom module as an evolving platform. I'm > not an "advanced user" of the core module, so I don't know what is > needed to make it better (we already did the critical improvements in > current trunk). > > Now it's my turn for the questions ;-) . What about your plans? > > Stefano >
