[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-131?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Stefano Bagnara updated MIME4J-131:
---
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.8)
0.7
> Factor out storage module
> --
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Stefano Bagnara updated MIME4J-129:
---
Fix Version/s: (was: 0.8)
0.7
> Split Up Core Module
> ---
>> > I would like to tackle the issues in several steps:
>> >
>> > (1) Move MaximalBodyDescriptor from o.a.j.m.parser to o.a.j.m.dom
>>
>> I don't think this is correct: MBD includes parsing implementation
>> details, while IMO dom is intended to only contain "api" (in form of
>> base/abstract clas
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=12828755#action_12828755
]
Stefano Bagnara commented on MIME4J-129:
Good job. Works for me.
(1) I guess you t
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-129?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Oleg Kalnichevski updated MIME4J-129:
-
Attachment: MIME4J-129-take1.patch
Just a very quick hack intended as a proof of concept
On Tue, 2010-02-02 at 14:36 +0100, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
> 2010/2/2 Oleg Kalnichevski :
> > Folks,
> >
> > Given the magnitude of changes that took place in the trunk I think we
> > should really try to tackle all potentially disruptive issues before 0.7
> > and finally really try to not move thin
a couple of graphs of the current package dependencies:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12434524/graph-mime4j-packages-20100202.png
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/attachment/12434523/graph-mime4j-parserdetail-20100202.png
> (3) Eliminate dependency on commons-logging in mi
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-157?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Stefano Bagnara updated MIME4J-157:
---
Attachment: graph-mime4j-packages-20100202.png
graph-mime4j-parserdetail
Folks,
Given the magnitude of changes that took place in the trunk I think we
should really try to tackle all potentially disruptive issues before 0.7
and finally really try to not move things around anymore.
I would like to invest time into resolving MIME4J-129, MIME4J-129 and
MIME4J-158.
I wo
