Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
B] our root package included classes from mixed layers/dependencies.
From the class dependencies graph it was almost obvious some different
classification:
- core:
BodyDescriptor/MutableBodyDescriptor/ContentDescriptor/MimeException
- util: ByteArrayBuffer/CharArrayBuffer
- everything else.
So I moved the 2 utils to util and the 4 core classes to a new "core"
package.
I was just wondering if moving the "root" package to mime4j.parser and
the
new "core" package to the root package would be a better alternative.
i like the sound of this better
Should I create a branch for the "reorganization" so that we can better
evaluate the final result?
feel free to grab a branch to demonstrate so long as you delete it
afterward and we don't merge anything
Here we are:
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mime4j/branches/repackaging-proposal/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/
vs
http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mime4j/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/
I tried to follow Bernd suggestion and limit the use of the util package
reintroducing the decoder package and adding stream and storage package.
I left in the main package only 4 *very core* classes and moved most of
the remaining classes to the parser package.
I checked that the organization in the branch does not have cyclic
dependencies.
What do you think about the result?
I also think that util.InputBuffer belongs to the stream package, but
I'm working on this as another unrelated issue.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
