On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 4:00 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 11:29 AM, Markus Wiederkehr >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 12:14 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> any particular reason why mime4j needs to be switched? >>> Personally I like APIs where I get a List<Field> instead of a dumb >>> List. But aside from these obvious benefits, no. >> >> yeh - i agree that java 5 APIs are much better > > I agree, too. > > BTW the only relationship between mime4j jvm requirement and james > requirements are that james will require at least what mime4j requires. > Mime4j is a library and may be used in different environment. IMHO we > would need another poll to mime4j users to understand if they have > problem with 1.5.
i'm not sure a poll would be effective. library users don't tend to follow user lists as well as application users. generally, you only know that users have a problem with a decision after you've taken and the damage has been done. > Another option is to use retrotranslator plugin > (http://mojo.codehaus.org/retrotranslator-maven-plugin/). this seems like a good solution. this would allow generics to be added to improve the API but would retain 1.4 support for a while. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
