I think ... org.apache.mailet for things in the mailet project. org.apache.james.mailet for anything in server. If that opinion helps in any way!
d. On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> (as can be seen at >> http://james.apache.org/mailet/base/apidocs/index.html) base mailet >> has quite a lot of packages for such a small library. they also seem >> quite messy - and so unlikely to play well with OSGi (for example). >> >> perhaps we should take this opportunity to rationalise into a single package >> >> ATM we have >> org.apache.james.util.mailet >> org.apache.mailet >> org.apache.mailet.dates >> >> i can see an argument for org.apache.mailet.base but there perhaps >> org.apache.mailet should be reserved just for the API. in which case >> org.apache.james.mailet.base might be better. >> >> opinions? > > Make sense. > > As we already started using "org.apache.mailet" as a top level package > name for mailet stuff maybe org.apache.mailet.base is better. > org.apache.mailet.standard > org.apache.mailet.crypto. > > All of that code should work in any mailet container and have no other > dependencies on james products (IIRC). > > That said I'm also fine with org.apache.james.mailet.base. > > Stefano > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
