On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 8:25 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> >> On Tue, Sep 16, 2008 at 12:20 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >>>> >>>> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<snip> >>>>> 3c) another option would be to extract the imap.message package to its >>>>> own >>>>> module (message). codec (or both decode/encode if it is splitted) would >>>>> then >>>>> depend on this message module). If I'm not wrong processor would so >>>>> depend >>>>> only on "message" and not on codec(decode/encode). >>>> >>>> a separate message module makes sense >>>> >>>> this area is a little messy and hope it can be resolved more elegantly >>>> once some of the deprecated structure's removed. >>> >>> I created a message module but I also moved there the "encode" part of >>> the >>> codec. >>> I did this temporarily because I don't know how you want to deal with the >>> ant api-library-function-deployment layering and the above separation >>> allowed me to not introduce another layer. >> >> i'll take a look at this once you've finished >> >>> How would you handle this in the self imposed layer rule? >> >> no real need to keep the rule for IMAP >> >> when decomposing a project as large and coupled as james, the tendency >> is to create a mess of modules with deep and complex interdependencies >> rather than working to correctly separate concerns. the >> api/library/function split (plus deployment) prevents this from >> happening. in order to fit the modules into this constraint it's >> necessary to separate concerns and adopt a relatively coursely grained >> and simple system of coupling. > > So, how do you propose me to solve the "message" module issue? > > A) move .message. to api? > B) create a new layer (between api and libraries) for .message. ? > C) leave as is (message+encode in a module, decode in the other module). > D) revert (merge again message and codec). > > I'll give a try to the api module to understand if some class can be moved > from api to message in order to make the 2 modules indipendend, but I doubt > this is possible. leave as is for now >>> Maybe the whole "message" package should be moved to imap-api instead? >>> Looking again at it I don't fully understand why some of "imap.message" >>> should be in api and something else should be in codec (now message) >>> library. Can you give me any hint? >> >> i was planning to review this post M1 so it's probably that stuff's >> just badly organised > > I find the current "message"+"codec" module better than before (even if > encode is in message module. > Maybe we should simply rename "codec" to "decoder" and release M1. > (I say this because I understand you want to do M1 early..) ok - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
