james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Stefano Bagnara <apa...@bago.org>
Subject Re: [mime4j] Review Packaging
Date Sun, 13 Jul 2008 19:23:13 GMT
Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
> On Sat, Jul 12, 2008 at 5:48 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
>>>> Stefano Bagnara ha scritto:
>>>>> B] our root package included classes from mixed layers/dependencies.
>>>>>  From the class dependencies graph it was almost obvious some different
>>>>> classification:
>>>>>  - core:
>>>>> BodyDescriptor/MutableBodyDescriptor/ContentDescriptor/MimeException
>>>>>  - util: ByteArrayBuffer/CharArrayBuffer
>>>>>  - everything else.
>>>>>  So I moved the 2 utils to util and the 4 core classes to a new "core"
>>>>> package.
>>>> I was just wondering if moving the "root" package to mime4j.parser and
>>>> the
>>>> new "core" package to the root package would be a better alternative.
>>> i like the sound of this better
>> Should I create a branch for the "reorganization" so that we can better
>> evaluate the final result?
> feel free to grab a branch to demonstrate so long as you delete it
> afterward and we don't merge anything

Here we are:

I tried to follow Bernd suggestion and limit the use of the util package 
reintroducing the decoder package and adding stream and storage package.

I left in the main package only 4 *very core* classes and moved most of 
the remaining classes to the parser package.

I checked that the organization in the branch does not have cyclic 

What do you think about the result?

I also think that util.InputBuffer belongs to the stream package, but 
I'm working on this as another unrelated issue.


To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org

View raw message