Robert Burrell Donkin wrote on: 22 January 2008 21:32 > On Jan 22, 2008 9:29 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > > >>> mime4j - completion of refactoring > > >> I'm not sure how much energy this will take and how we > should delay a > > >> release, but why don't we release 0.4 based on the > current codebase and > > >> then refactor more in 0.5 ? > > >> We did this with jSPF and we made a lot of releases. I > think it is > > >> better to have many incompatible releases than no releases ;-) > > >> Having a release means that users will download and test > it, and will > > >> report bugs against a specific codebase. > > >> I think we solved most of legal issues related to the > release of mime4j. > > > > > > IIRC mime4j is only required for mailbox etc > > > > Looking at the poms it is only imported by > > experimental-activemq-function and searching the java files > I can only > > find SimpleMailBuilder inside that module. > > i have an uncommitted patch that fixes some IMAP bugs which relies on > mime4j. also, once jsieve is released, mime4j will be required by the > sieve mailet which again is dependent on mailbox.
JSieve is meant to be agnostic to its deployment environment. It seems that by including a sample of how to integrate with James using a mailet we (initially I) have unintentionally introduced an undesirable coupling. Perhaps it would be better to move the sample to James Server to decouple JSieve from James allowing its release? Of course, this then makes James Server dependent on JSieve <shrug/>. > > - robert -- Steve --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
