On Sun, May 25, 2008 at 2:41 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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.
the round tripping needs further analysis but i'm happy to leave this for 0.5 - robert
