james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Bernd Fondermann" <bernd.fonderm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: [mime4j] what else need to be done (Was: Benchmark of 0.3 vs 0.4)
Date Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:41:21 GMT
On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 18:07, Stefano Bagnara <apache@bago.org> wrote:
> Bernd Fondermann ha scritto:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2008 at 13:41, Niklas Therning <niklas@trillian.se> wrote:
>>>
>>> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Niklas Therning ha scritto:
>>>>>
>>>>> Oleg Kalnichevski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stefano Bagnara wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> what else needs to be done before we can ship?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm looking here:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J?report=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.project:roadmap-panel
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I see 4 issues open for the 0.4 release:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MIME4J-57 Add a max limit to header length for parsing.
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-57
>>>>>>> - this seems critical because it may results in OOM/DoS, but
we had
>>>>>>> this in past too, so could even be moved to 0.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MIME4J-69 Decoding/encoding is not coherent between headers and
body
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-69
>>>>>>> - this probably is too complicate to delay a release and I don't
have
>>>>>>> the evergy to discuss how it should be correctly solved, now.
So if
>>>>>>> no one
>>>>>>> plan to work on it soon, it should be moved to 0.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MIME4J-51 Remove cyclic dependencies and provide better organization
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the source tree.
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-51
>>>>>>> - I applied my proposed patch. There are concerns from you and
Bernd
>>>>>>>  1) remove also the util package.
>>>>>>>  2) add a package documentation with examples and "parser"
>>>>>>> references.
>>>>>>> I personally don't care of #1, and if needed I can work on #2
but
>>>>>>> without examples, simply adding a package.html with one single
>>>>>>> sentence:
>>>>>>> "the main classes for the pull and SAX parser are in the parser
>>>>>>> package."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MIME4J-27 [JW#7] Limitations Support
>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-27
>>>>>>> - No answers from Jochen to your question in a month. maybe it
should
>>>>>>> be moved to 0.5.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Once the 4 issues above have been solved (or postponed) we need
a
>>>>>>> release manager.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nothing else I can remember now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Stefano,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> None of these issues seems severe enough to block the 0.4 release.
I
>>>>>> would very much appreciate if the 0.4 release could happen rather
>>>>>> sooner
>>>>>> than later. It would be very unfortunate if we had to release
>>>>>> HttpClient
>>>>>> 4.0-beta1 without the HttpMime module.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Oleg
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with Oleg. IMO these issues can be moved to 0.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> /Niklas
>>>>
>>>> Just to make it clear that I agree with you two, too. I simply dumped
>>>> the
>>>> JIRA status and told that I had nothing against moving every open issue
>>>> to
>>>> 0.5. So, if no one object on this we now miss only the volunteer that
>>>> will
>>>> act as the release manager.
>>>
>>> Ok, great. I have no idea of what it takes to do a release I'm afraid.
>>> Someone else?
>>>
>>>> After your benchmark I applied the package refactoring I proposed in
>>>> MIME4J-51, so I'd like you and Oleg to try updating your client code to
>>>> see
>>>> how many changes are needed and if the new structure make sense. This is
>>>> something I would avoid changing too often, so it is better to vet it
>>>> now
>>>> before we write it in the stone with a release.
>>>>
>>> I'm afraid I have missed the whole "review packaging" discussion, I hope
>>> I'm
>>> not too late. :) I'd prefer to have MimeStreamParser and MimeTokenStream
>>> in
>>> the root package if possible. That would be the most natural thing I
>>> think
>>> since those are by far the most central classes. I also think
>>> ContentHandler
>>> and AbstractContentHandler could go in the root package. With these
>>> changes
>>> the upgrade effort for me would be close to none since what we use is
>>> probably only MimeStreamParser, ContentHandler and BodyDescriptor. I
>>> understand that this would introduce some cycles but I still think that
>>> it
>>> would make Mime4j a lot easier to use for the end user. I'd rather have
>>> some
>>> cyclic dependencies if it makes the whole thing easier to understand.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> Analysing package dependency statistics and correcting most cyclic
>> dependencies is good and very helpful. In my opinion, going as far as
>> putting up a zero-cycles-policy makes more user-friendly and pragmatic
>> solutions like the proposed one impossible. I am repeating myself by
>> saying that exposing the central classes in the root package is by far
>> the most user friendly.
>
> Niklas, Bernd, please can you make a concrete list of changes you propose
> (against current trunk or against the tree before my change) if this is not
> one of the 4 solutions I listed in a recent answer to this thread so that we
> can add a 5th solution to this issue and we can cast our preferences and see
> where the consensus build?
>
> I happen to share only the concern that this change require updates for old
> version users. I don't shared the "user-friendly" and "pragmatic" concerns.
> IMHO a parser package is much more user-friendly and pragmatic than having
> 20 classes in the main package even if I ignore the cycles issue. So it is
> matter of opinions, we should simply poll to see where the majority is.

I think Niklas could not have been more concrete by saying that...
"I'd prefer to have MimeStreamParser and MimeTokenStream in the root
package if possible. That would be the most natural thing I think
since those are by far the most central classes. I also think
ContentHandler and AbstractContentHandler could go in the root
package."

If these are the only classes in root, that's fine with me and that's
the proposed change, as I understand it.
What's still unclear about it?

> Good packaging and no cycles is also very important if you plan to embrace
> library management tools ala OSGi, but they are not a blocker for me.

Well, that's a good point actually, since it highlights a disadvantage
of OSGi which in my experience requires splitting proper jars up into
artifically fragments to leverage full OSGi modularization.

  Bernd

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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