On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 12:40 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> About the repackaging (MIME4J-51) I think we almost have an agreement, >> so I'd like to push this a little to understand if we can complete this >> and avoid reverting this or releasing something in progress. >> >> AFAICT the only pending issue is the "stream" package. >> >> Niklas commented: >> > * Rename the stream package io. MimeTokenStream is a stream too. It's >> > a bit confusing to me that it isn't in the stream package. >> >> I replied: >> > I'm fine with "io" but maybe a better option would be >> > streamfilters"/"inputstreams"/"inputfilters"/"filterinputstreams"/"filteris" >> > so to make it more descriptive. Opinions? >> >> My current preference is "streamfilter" (more descriptive than "io" but >> shorter than "filterinputstreams"), but I'm happy with any name. >> > > +1 to renaming 'stream' as 'io'. We may end up having classes that are > related to IO but are not streams. IO sounds generic enough yet > descriptive.
+1 >> If I understand correctly there is consensus about the parser package. >> The main concern remain from Bernd: are you happy with the javadoc >> solution (overview.html) and the current structure? >> http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/job/mime4j-trunk/ws/trunk/target/site/apidocs/index.html >> >> >> http://people.apache.org/~bago/mime4j/mime4j-51/graph-mime4j-package.gif >> >> Oleg, I hope this summary let you understand what is the current status >> of MIME4J-51 and the consensus around it. >> >> I leave to you the decision about releasing without the refactoring >> (revert MIME4J-51), release "as is", or see the answers about the >> "stream" package and "complete it" before releasing. >> > > In the worst case I see no harm in releasing things as they stand and > revisiting MIME4J-51 during the 0.5 development. +1 release early, release often ;-) i see no reason why we can't push ahead quickly with a 0.5 once 0.4 has been released. IMHO it should be easier to settled some arguments when we can use benchmarking. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
