Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 6:16 PM, Bernd Fondermann
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 18:52, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
IMHO this one (use the new structure but move some class from
parser to
main) is the worst of the 5 analyzed, but I won't veto it, so if
this is
what the majority wants, I'm fine with it.
I don't think that Apache is about majority decisions in the first
place. Majority decisions (votes) are often not including minority
opinions, while finding consensus is about taking every opinion into
acount (known as 'compromising'). If that doesn't work, votes come
into play. (Disclaimer: The readers notion about 'The Apache Way' may
vary.)
i think it's important to let people know about changes like this and
assemble some kind of rough consensus before embarking. i think
there's now a consensus that these changes are broadly an improvement
but that more refinements are possible. let's just apply the proposal
and then start working on the improvements.
MIME4J-51 proposal has already been applied, unfortunately what I
thought was consensus a week ago now seems something invented by me ;-)
My questions to Niklas and Bernd are really to understand if
"refinements" is something that can be done on the refactored tree or
if the consensus is now too far from that and we should better revert
it and start from that.
I'm scared that people think I'm pushing my proposal or pushing my
cycle dependencies issues when I just want to see something done.
I hope Niklas will update us soon, without fears or bad feelings wrt
this thread, and I also hope that someone else with better
communications skills can show what's wrong in the way I try to build
consensus.
Hi,
I certainly understand the merits of trying to reduce cyclic package
dependencies, especially for the developers developing the software. My
only concern is that zero cyclic dependencies in a library such as
Mime4j doesn't necessarily mean that it will be easier to use for the
end user.
I definitely think that most of the refactorings you've made are great.
My suggestion was only to move the four classes/interfaces I mentioned
to the root package. That's all. I've played around with JDepend and if
I understand correctly this change results in a single cycle (mime4j <->
parser). My gut feeling is that this would make it easier for the end
user. However, as an active committer I'm not the typical end user
myself so my gut feeling could be wrong. I can definitely live with what
is in trunk right now. To me it is more important that we release a new
version soon. Also, at this stage of the project I think we can afford
to (and probably we will) change our minds about the package hierarchy a
couple of times more as the code evolves.
I don't think there is anything wrong with your communication skills.
I'm impressed that you are investing so much of your personal time in
trying to make Mime4j a better piece of software. Don't stop doing that!
:) The reason why I didn't raise my concerns earlier is that I haven't
had the time to catch up until now (I just come back from vacation).
/Niklas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
