2011/1/11 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>: > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 15:18 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> 2011/1/11 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>: >> > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 14:01 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> >> 2011/1/11 Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]>: >> >> > On Tue, 2011-01-11 at 09:27 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: >> >> >> Hi there, >> >> >> >> >> >> I think if it worth it we should release 0.6.2. Release often release >> >> >> early, you know ;) >> >> >> >> >> >> Bye, >> >> >> Norman >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Folks >> >> > >> >> > I also would like to port another fix, should we decide to do another >> >> > release off the 0.6.x branch. >> >> >> >> What is the other fix? This one is not critical (I see it just like a >> >> documentation bug: either way we need that check on that field to work >> >> that way, we can't simply check the line length). >> >> >> > >> > Parsing of folded fields. The default field parser in 0.6 chokes on >> > perfectly valid fields if their body is folded. >> > >> > >> >> > I am also willing to make a push toward the 0.7 release, if no one is >> >> > going to pick up work on the API changes stared by Stefano on the trunk. >> >> >> >> I had really few time but I think I also slowed down because I never >> >> understood if what I was doing was liked or not. It takes a lot to >> >> complete stuff, so I would have liked to understand what others thinks >> >> we should do in 0.7. >> >> >> >> As an example I see sometimes we talk as 0.x versions we can do >> >> backward incompatible changes trying to reach a good api, other times >> >> it seems we instead are "stuck" to the 0.6 version because 0.6 has >> >> already a lot of users so compatibility is brought to the table. >> >> >> >> That said, I say my opinion and I expect others to say their opinions >> >> so that we can see where we can find a consensus. >> >> - I think 0.6 is not "great" as API, so I would happily break >> >> compatibility in order to provide a better api. Main thing is that the >> >> 0.6 API does not accept evolution (every non trivial feature will >> >> require a backward incompatible change). >> >> - IMO current trunk could be released as 0.7.0 with very minor change: >> >> it is far from exposing a complete api, but I find it already better >> >> than 0.6 and I have already some product depending on current trunk. >> >> We saw we proceed at a slow speed, so we should be prepared improving >> >> the API while we reach 1.0. >> >> - I guess most of changes we have in trunk are not backportable to 0.6 >> >> because they have been possible by the major refactorings, but I'm not >> >> against this, if anyone sees a way. >> >> >> >> Can you state yours and also tell something more about "your" 0.7 plan? >> >> >> > >> > I think we discussed this on more than one occasion in the past. While I >> > think mime4j 'core' in 0.7 is fine, the 'dom' / 'message' stuff is not, >> >> Yes, we discussed a couple of times, but we didn't find a solution (at >> least not one I understood) >> >> > and the whole library is not in a releasable state at the moment. >> >> Got it: hope you will review trunk soon to understand what changes you >> propose to make it releasable. >> >> > And there is "my" plan: >> > >> > (1) ask people to go over issues in JIRA and decide what is in scope for >> > 0.7 and what can wait until a better day (0.8) >> >> +1 >> >> The main causes I use trunk in production instead of 0.6 are: >> MIME4J-158 - Reduce usage of commons-logging in favor of a "Monitor" service. >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-158 >> MIME4J-58 - Lenient dealing with headless messages or malformed >> header/body separation >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-58 >> MIME4J-153 - Headless inconsistency between MimeTokenStream and >> MimeStreamParser >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-153 >> >> Also the folded header stuff you mentioned (MIME4J-141 - MIME4J-146) >> >> > (2) revisit the 'dom' and 'message' packages and try to figure out >> > whether 'model' and 'implementation' classes in their present form make >> > sense. >> >> +1 >> >> > In my option, many of them do not. >> >> They are the result of my limited use case: they work fine in my use >> cases (jDKIM + proprietary product). >> We need more real use cases to "shape" them, but I trust you (and you >> probably have good uses cases too), so I will wait for your review. >> >> Stefano >> > > Stefano, for the love of God Almighty, what else am I supposed to do?
I don't get what I said to upset you. I'm sorry if you thought I'm on the way. I keep repeating you just commit your changes, just do whatever you want on svn and I will be happy. You don't commit anything so I try discussing. I don't know what you prefer me to do. I'm just trying to understand how to evolve mime4j. > I > pointed out a number of times those things that do not seem to make any > sense what so ever, like HeaderImpl extending Header, which is a > CONCRETE class, or abstract Multipart where the only abstract aspects > are preamble / epilogue related methods. > > OK. I will create a copy of mime4j on github and make _minimal_ changes > to your code just to resolve the most glaring WTFs in the API and > present it for review. Simply listing things that I disagree with does > not seem to bring us anywhere anymore. Why can't you simply work on trunk or on a branch here in our svn? I think I encouraged you multiple times to simply do this, I don't really understand why you aswer me like I'm trying to stop you. My preference is for you to use trunk. We use CTR, so go ahead and I hope you will be happy if I review what you do. You are a committer, so we already trust you, so you should no fear working in trunk. I do this when I have ideas and I expect others to simply do the same. If what I committed in trunk is blocking evolution then just revert it, otherwise make your changes: whatever you feel appropriate. We will ask questions when we need answers :-) Stefano PS: if something I said/did makes you angry just explain me please. I hope this is just something related to "translation" and the fact we don't speak the same language natively.
