On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
we would need to ensure that appropriate facades exist but that's probably not a bad thing > 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. would need to check for usage downstream in james, but in general agreement - robert
