On Jan 22, 2008 11:36 PM, Steve Brewin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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/>.
IIRC jsieve is agnostic but address parsing is factored out. for the sieve mailet, this will be provided by mime4j - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
