On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 20:45 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > 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 >
Folks As far as I can tell no one objects the idea. If I hear no complaints, I'll go ahead and rename the package and close MIME4J-51 tomorrow. Oleg > >> 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
