james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Oleg Kalnichevski <ol...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [mime4j] release preparation (packages / MIME4J-51)
Date Wed, 13 Aug 2008 20:52:37 GMT
On Wed, 2008-08-13 at 20:45 +0100, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <olegk@apache.org> 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: server-dev-unsubscribe@james.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-help@james.apache.org
> 


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


Mime
View raw message