Robert Burrell Donkin wrote:
(i hope to do a proper review of the releases tomorrow)
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 3:25 PM, Markus Wiederkehr
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Sun, Feb 8, 2009 at 2:35 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[email protected]> wrote:
Folks
Please do take a few minutes to review the release notes, packages and
the updated web site for the upcoming 0.6 release.
Release notes:
http://people.apache.org/~olegk/mime4j-0.6-preview/RELEASE_NOTES.txt
I wonder if we should include any or all of the older notes from 0.4 and 0.5:
* Mime4j API is still considered unstable and is likely to change in
future releases
* DOM support has known limitations and some roundtrip issues remain
to be resolved
* Some low level functions are available only in the pull parser
(recommended for
advanced users)
I would opt for numbers 1 and 3;
+1
number 2 should have been resolved
sufficiently in the course of MIME4J-34..
probably worth saying something about 2, maybe
"The DOM API has been now been comprehensively refactored and the
known limitations addressed. Please report any remaining issues to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J.";
we should probably add something about the known limitations of some
of the field parsing code, maybe something like
"0.6 contains a mixture of approaches to the parsing of advanced MIME
field types. Limitations are known with these approaches with some
relatively uncommon use cases. A consistent and comprehensive rewrite
is planned for 0.7 which should consolidate and address these."
- robert
Markus, Robert
Sounds very reasonable. There is no need for a complex protocol. Just go
ahead and apply changes that you deem necessary.
Oleg
