Hi Eugen,
> Regarding the OSGI correctness of mime4j packages: Have you found any > issues that block you to use the library as it is? My personal issue is that I found the library a little difficult to understand. I wanted to document it, but noticed: 1. That there are several projects/modules (not sure what you want to call them), but I don’t understand what they are or why they are not all in the same project/module 2. That the difference between the API and the implementation is not clear to me, so it’s not immediately clear what classes I should care about and which ones I can safely ignore If somebody can answer those questions, that would be great. > MesssageBuilderFactory/MessageBuilder - decouple DOM from Message: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-175 This is *exactly* the type of problem that virtually goes away when API is properly separated from implementation. > If the improvements are substantial and provide benefits to users, they > may be more inclined to accept a breaking change. Agree. As I mentioned to Philip, I will first run a little test to see if it is easily doable or not. I probably should have done that first. I may discover that my suggestion is completely irrelevant, but that’s also why I wanted to ask here first in order to get some advice. :-) > We can make it easier for them if we provide a migration guide as to what > packages / classes > they should rename. Agree. > A few years ago I was very eager to update and use newest versions. Now, > while having to maintain software in production, I appreciate stability > and boring libraries. Of course. That is what semantic versioning is supposed to help with. Unfortunately this project is not using semantic versioning, apparently. Cheers, =David
