On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Wim Jongman <[email protected]> wrote: > <snip> > > Not related to mime4j there should be a new naming convention providing for > three levels of package visibility. > > 1. API, dom.organization.soandso > 2. Not intended to be API dom.organization.internal.soandso > 3. Absolutely not API dom.organization.private.soandso
Okay, then I'd say the o.a.j.mime4j.field.*.parser packages should definitely be private. Candidates for internal would be: * org.apache.james.mime4j.codec * org.apache.james.mime4j.io * org.apache.james.mime4j.util Maybe o.a.j.mime4j.io should even be private, I'm not sure. Everything else is public IMO.. Markus
