On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 12:52 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 1:10 PM, Wim Jongman <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> mime4j package already contains Bundle-/Import directives in the >>> MANIFEST file. What else is needed? >>> >>> Stefano >>> >> >> That depends on your needs/commitment to OSGi. For instance, I see that all >> packages are exported where only API should be exported. I will study the >> mime4j software and get back with recommendations of osgi content in the >> manifest > > In my opinion the following packages should not be exported because > they are automatically generated from JavaCC sources and are not part > of the public API: > > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.address.parser > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.contentdisposition.parser > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.contenttype.parser > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.datetime.parser > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.language.parser > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.mimeversion.parser > org.apache.james.mime4j.field.structured.parser > > Or in other word *.parser except org.apache.james.mime4j.parser.
IIRC some of this stuff is used downstream by james but perhaps it's not longer necessary > I tried to exclude these packages from the Javadoc by adding exclude > directives to the POM but for some reason they seem to have made it > into the current release.. > > Maybe we should also emphasize the fact that these packages are not > public by renaming them into o.a.j.mime4j.private.* or something like > that.. Opinions? IMO any code that isn't intended to be used by downstream projects should be packaged as you suggest - robert
