On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 14:29 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sun, 2008-05-25 at 11:27 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 8:18 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin > >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 1:22 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> > wrote: > >> >> On Sat, 2008-05-24 at 07:05 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > >> >>> On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 7:29 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> >>> wrote: > >> > > >> > <snip> > >> > > >> >>> > Can I be of help? > >> >>> > >> >>> yes > >> >>> > >> >>> a great place to start would be by reviewing the bug list on JIRA > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> MIME4J-30, > >> > >> i'll ping jochen to see whether he wants to commit his local fork > >> before 0.4 or not > >> > >> >> MIMEJ4-40 and MIMEJ4-41 appear to have an acceptable > >> >> solution. It is just a matter of applying the patch. > >> > > >> > quite possibly. i'll take a look. > >> > >> no rights for patches so created tests and fixes from scratch > >> > >> oleg could you check whether > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-34 needs more work? > >> > > > > Robert > > > > In my opinion it does not. At least from my biased point of view. > > if you could update the JIRA outlining the deficiencies of the current > codebase then we can take a look at sorting them out
I guess I did not make myself clear enough. I think the current implementation is perfectly okay, at least from the HttpMime / HttpClient standpoint. I am not in a position to comment on the round tripping issue, though, as I do not know the MIME spec well enough. As far I can tell the issue can be closed. Oleg > > - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
