Re: mime4j warnings and doing an install

Hi Norman, Thanks for the reply, I'll give it a try! Regards, Roy - To unsubscribe, e-mail: server-dev-unsubscr...@james.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: server-dev-h...@james.apache.org

Re: mime4j warnings and doing an install

Hi there, sorry for the delay. I'm quite busy atm... See comments inline 2012/3/27 : > Hello devs, > > So I've made good progress on my custom mailbox implementation (which > required creating our own version of domainlist and usersrepository and a few > other changes). > > A few questions to

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

On Sat, Jan 24, 2009 at 11:43 AM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >> >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> Folks >>> >>> Take it for what it is worth to you. >>> >>> In the HttpClient / HttpComponents land we have to deal with lots o

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Markus Wiederkehr wrote: On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: Folks Take it for what it is worth to you. In the HttpClient / HttpComponents land we have to deal with lots of various HTTP protocol violations (or shall I say imperfections). There has always been a lot of

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > > > Folks > > Take it for what it is worth to you. > > In the HttpClient / HttpComponents land we have to deal with lots of > various HTTP protocol violations (or shall I say imperfections). There > has always been a lot of requests fro

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

On Fri, 2009-01-23 at 11:08 +, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > >>> Valentina Medici ha scritto: > Hi Stefano and hi all! > > >

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: >> On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>> Valentina Medici ha scritto: Hi Stefano and hi all! Stefano Bagnara wrote: > things wrong and there is nothing to do

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> Valentina Medici ha scritto: >>> Hi Stefano and hi all! >>> >>> Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>> things wrong and there is nothing to do to fix it. But IMHO, before implementing any "workaround" to c

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Valentina Medici ha scritto: >> Hi Stefano and hi all! >> >> Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> >>> things wrong and there is nothing to do to fix it. But IMHO, before >>> implementing any "workaround" to compensate for other developers errors >>> w

Re: [mime4j] remove NamedMailbox?

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 1:03 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > I am still working on MIME4J-100 and would now like to add methods for > creating address header fields.. > > For this it would be nice if Mailbox had a one-argument constructor to > create a Mailbox object from an e-mail address without

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Valentina Medici ha scritto: > Hi Stefano and hi all! > > Stefano Bagnara wrote: > >> things wrong and there is nothing to do to fix it. But IMHO, before >> implementing any "workaround" to compensate for other developers errors >> we have to understand what application is creating similar messag

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Hi Stefano and hi all! Stefano Bagnara wrote: things wrong and there is nothing to do to fix it. But IMHO, before implementing any "workaround" to compensate for other developers errors we have to understand what application is creating similar messages and why. I must admit that I personally

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Valentina Medici ha scritto: > Hi, > > the malformed MIME messages aren't created by a mainstream application. > > Unfotunately we need to be extremely tolerant and try to decode as many > messages as possibile, despite their adherence to the standard. If I may > put my two cents in, I still thin

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Hi, the malformed MIME messages aren't created by a mainstream application. Unfotunately we need to be extremely tolerant and try to decode as many messages as possibile, despite their adherence to the standard. If I may put my two cents in, I still think that if you want to be tolerant, you

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

Valentina Medici ha scritto: > Hi all! > > I have a MIME base64 decoded message in which the header > Content-Transfer-Encoding is almost correct except for the fact that the > new line after the header is missing. In the current implementation of > mime4j (0.5) that file couldn't be decoded. > In

Re: [mime4j] [PATCH] - Proposed patch to decode base64 messages with malformed Content-Transfer-Encoding headers

On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Valentina Medici wrote: > Hi all! > > I have a MIME base64 decoded message in which the header > Content-Transfer-Encoding is almost correct except for the fact that the > new line after the header is missing. In the current implementation of > mime4j (0.5) that fi

Re: mime4j moderation [was: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Create mime4j-dev mailing ]

Great! Thanks! :-) Remember, you can be removed at any time from moderation by mailing in...@a.o. Would you like to mod with your gmail or apache email? I assume gmail, if you don't tell me otherwise. Thanks again, Bernd On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 18:58, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > Okay, count

Re: mime4j moderation [was: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Create mime4j-dev mailing ]

Okay, count me in, too.. Markus On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Bernd Fondermann wrote: > Any volonteers for moderation on mime4j@ apart from me? We need 3 at best, > or even more. > > Bernd > > Bernd Fondermann wrote: >> >> Tallying a little bit later than I'd intended. >> >> The vote passed

Re: [mime4j] Refactor a few classes / packages?

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> I would like to refactor a few things in Mime4j: >> >> 1) I think package o.a.j.mime4j.decoder should be renamed in >> o.a.j.mime4j.codec because it also contains a few

Re: mime4j moderation [was: Re: [RESULT][VOTE] Create mime4j-dev mailing ]

Count me in... Cheers, Norman 2009/1/18 Bernd Fondermann : > Any volonteers for moderation on mime4j@ apart from me? We need 3 at best, > or even more. > > Bernd > > Bernd Fondermann wrote: >> >> Tallying a little bit later than I'd intended. >> >> The vote passed with >> +1 from Robert, Markus

Re: [mime4j] Refactor a few classes / packages?

Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> I would like to refactor a few things in Mime4j: >> >> 1) I think package o.a.j.mime4j.decoder should be renamed in >> o.a.j.mime4j.codec because it also contains a few encoder classes. > > +1 +1

Re: [mime4j] Refactor a few classes / packages?

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:47 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > I would like to refactor a few things in Mime4j: > > 1) I think package o.a.j.mime4j.decoder should be renamed in > o.a.j.mime4j.codec because it also contains a few encoder classes. +1 > 2) How about replacing o.a.j.m.field.address.Ad

Re: [mime4j] MIME4J-77 Decide Whether MimeException should extend IOException

On Sat, 2009-01-10 at 22:00 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > You're gonna hate me.. > > With MIME4J-77 the decision was made to decouple MimeException from > IOException and to introduce an adaptor class, MimeIOException. And > yes, I agreed on that. > > But now that I have worked with the curre

Re: [mime4j] MIME4J-6 Loading bodies on demand instead of using temporary files

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 9:33 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> wrote: >>> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >>> wrote: what about https://issues.apach

Re: [mime4j] MIME4J-6 Loading bodies on demand instead of using temporary files

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:27 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> wrote: >>> what about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-6? >>> >>> should this be addressed? closed

Re: [mime4j] MIME4J-6 Loading bodies on demand instead of using temporary files

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:05 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> what about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-6? >> >> should this be addressed? closed? moved to 0.7? > > I don't like the idea very much. Not that it wouldn't

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:14 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> wrote: >>> i think that the time's right to convert mime4j into a project with >>> multiple modules with exampl

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:24 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> i think that the time's right to convert mime4j into a project with >> multiple modules with examples, benchmarks and main as the initial >> modules. >> >> opinions?

Re: [mime4j] MIME4J-6 Loading bodies on demand instead of using temporary files

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:34 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > what about https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-6? > > should this be addressed? closed? moved to 0.7? I don't like the idea very much. Not that it wouldn't be nice to have but the necessary changes in Mime4J would be too dra

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 10:58 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > i think that the time's right to convert mime4j into a project with > multiple modules with examples, benchmarks and main as the initial > modules. > > opinions? i think there's a consensus that this is a good idea but i think that

Re: [mime4j] High-level field factory

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 10:14 AM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > I suggest we add a high-level factory for header fields. I would like > to simply call it Fields. Here is an outline that illustrates the > design for the Date field: > > public class Fields { > >public static DateTimeField date(Stri

Re: [mime4j] Reconsider Message#getSubject()

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:34 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> wrote: >>> Would it be a problem to change the return type of Message.getSubject? >> >> i'm not a fan of the legacy me

Re: [mime4j] Reconsider Message#getSubject()

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:09 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> Would it be a problem to change the return type of Message.getSubject? > > i'm not a fan of the legacy message API so i generally keep quiet... May I ask why not? I think

Re: [mime4j] Reconsider Message#getSubject()

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > Would it be a problem to change the return type of Message.getSubject? i'm not a fan of the legacy message API so i generally keep quiet... > Markus > > On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> I've noticed that Mes

Re: [mime4j] Reconsider Message#getSubject()

Would it be a problem to change the return type of Message.getSubject? Markus On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:49 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > I've noticed that Message has a method getSubject() that returns the > subject as UnstructuredField. > > In my opinion it would be more practical if getSubject

Re: [mime4j] Drop JDK1.4 support entirely?

Done.. Markus On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:46 PM, Norman Maurer wrote: > +1 > Norman > > 2009/1/6 Oleg Kalnichevski : >> Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: > > Mime4j uses the retrotranslator maven

Re: [mime4j] Drop JDK1.4 support entirely?

+1 Norman 2009/1/6 Oleg Kalnichevski : > Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >>> >>> Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: Mime4j uses the retrotranslator maven plugin to build a JDK1.4 compatible jar file. Now I've noticed a few problems w

Re: [mime4j] Drop JDK1.4 support entirely?

Markus Wiederkehr wrote: On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: Mime4j uses the retrotranslator maven plugin to build a JDK1.4 compatible jar file. Now I've noticed a few problems with that. For example CipherStorageProvider contains this innocent

Re: [mime4j] Drop JDK1.4 support entirely?

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: >> Mime4j uses the retrotranslator maven plugin to build a JDK1.4 >> compatible jar file. Now I've noticed a few problems with that. >> >> For example CipherStorageProvider contains this innocent looking lines o

Re: [mime4j] Drop JDK1.4 support entirely?

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: >> Mime4j uses the retrotranslator maven plugin to build a JDK1.4 >> compatible jar file. Now I've noticed a few problems with that. >> >> For example CipherStorageProvider contains this innocent looking lines o

Re: [mime4j] Drop JDK1.4 support entirely?

Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: > Mime4j uses the retrotranslator maven plugin to build a JDK1.4 > compatible jar file. Now I've noticed a few problems with that. > > For example CipherStorageProvider contains this innocent looking lines of > code: > > catch (NoSuchAlgorithmException e) { >

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:12 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > +1 > > Maybe we should also consider separating the SAX-style parsing code > from the DOM classes.. this probably makes sense in the medium term - robert - To unsubscri

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

+1 Maybe we should also consider separating the SAX-style parsing code from the DOM classes.. Markus On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:58 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > i think that the time's right to convert mime4j into a project with > multiple modules with examples, benchmarks and main as the i

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > i think that the time's right to convert mime4j into a project with > multiple modules with examples, benchmarks and main as the initial > modules. > > opinions? works for me, Stefano - To uns

Re: [mime4j] Time For Multi-Module...?

+1 Norman 2009/1/4 Robert Burrell Donkin : > i think that the time's right to convert mime4j into a project with > multiple modules with examples, benchmarks and main as the initial > modules. > > opinions? > > - robert > > - > To

Re: [mime4j] Simple benchmark for testing performance of the MIME stream parser

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:14 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: >>> Folks >>> >>> I took liberty to commit an ultra-simple benchmark I use for testing >>> performance of the MI

Re: [mime4j] Message transformation example code

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 12:13 AM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > I have added a Mime4j example that should illustrate some of Mime4j's > new DOM capabilities: > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=731132 > > Please let me know if it makes any sense. looks good :-) it's probably about tim

Re: [mime4j] Simple benchmark for testing performance of the MIME stream parser

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 8:15 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: >> Folks >> >> I took liberty to commit an ultra-simple benchmark I use for testing >> performance of the MIME stream parser. >> >> http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=7

Re: [mime4j] Simple benchmark for testing performance of the MIME stream parser

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > Folks > > I took liberty to commit an ultra-simple benchmark I use for testing > performance of the MIME stream parser. > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=729347 > > Feel free to improve / extend / remove if useless. I ha

Re: [mime4j] rat check fails

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > Currently the Hudson build is broken because of the recent addition of > benchmarks/resources/long-multipart.msg without an ASF header. See > http://hudson.zones.apache.org/hudson/view/James/job/mime4j-trunk/ or > run 'mvn rat:check' loca

Re: [mime4j] Simple benchmark for testing performance of the MIME stream parser

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > Folks > > I took liberty to commit an ultra-simple benchmark I use for testing > performance of the MIME stream parser. > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=729347 Good idea! I have added the two benchmark tests I have rece

Re: [mime4j] Simple benchmark for testing performance of the MIME stream parser

Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: Folks I took liberty to commit an ultra-simple benchmark I use for testing performance of the MIME stream parser. http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=729347 Feel free to improve / extend / remov

Re: [mime4j] Simple benchmark for testing performance of the MIME stream parser

On Wed, Dec 24, 2008 at 6:21 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > Folks > > I took liberty to commit an ultra-simple benchmark I use for testing > performance of the MIME stream parser. > > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?view=rev&revision=729347 > > Feel free to improve / extend / remove if useless. cool

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

2008/12/15 Robert Burrell Donkin : > On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >>> wrote: Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realiz

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 12:33 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> wrote: >>> Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it is >>> about Base64Encoder, not Ba

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 1:38 PM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> wrote: >>> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >>> wrote: Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > wrote: >> On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> wrote: >>> Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it is >>> about Base64Encoder, not Base64OutputStream.. >>> >>> But

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 11:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it is >> about Base64Encoder, not Base64OutputStream.. >> >> But is Base64Encoder really necessary? I me

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it is >> about Base64Encoder, not Base64OutputStream.. >> >> But is Base64Encoder really necessary? I mean >> CodecUtil.encodeBase64(I

Re: [mime4j] open issues MIME4J-66 and 67

On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:35 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > Sorry about my last comment on MIME4J-66. I did not realize that it is > about Base64Encoder, not Base64OutputStream.. > > But is Base64Encoder really necessary? I mean > CodecUtil.encodeBase64(InputStream, OutputStream) could also be > i

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:38 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> wrote: >>> Does org.apache.james.mime4j.util.StringArrayMap serve any purpose? It >>> does not seem to be used anywhe

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > ... > We run all of james product with CTR (commit then review). For stable > branches and for code that you are not confident with, and anytime you > feel it better, it is suggested the use of RTC (in this case I'd use CTR). > > For most

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:06 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > wrote: >> [...] >> Unfortunately I have a use case where things are different: applying >> an explicit S/MIME signature. Certain e-mail clients from a certain >> company are a bit

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 12:40 PM, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: >> Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: >>> I have written a new Base64OutputStream for Mime4j. According to my >>> tests it is about twice as fast as the current one (when fed with 1024

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefano Bagnara wrote: > Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: >> I have written a new Base64OutputStream for Mime4j. According to my >> tests it is about twice as fast as the current one (when fed with 1024 >> byte blocks). > > Good! > >> It also resolves a tiny issue: t

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: > I have written a new Base64OutputStream for Mime4j. According to my > tests it is about twice as fast as the current one (when fed with 1024 > byte blocks). Good! > It also resolves a tiny issue: the current implementation still > appends _two_ CRLFs at the end of

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 6:38 AM, Norman Maurer wrote: > Hi Markus, > > I think the best solution would be to open an jira for at james, JIRAs for tasks are not compulsory but are a useful form of communication for complex topics and they do make it easier to create release notes > and then try >

Re: [mime4j] New Base64OutputStream

Hi Markus, I think the best solution would be to open an jira for and then try out your new karma (CTR) ;-) BTW, if you mention the jira issue number in the commit message it get attached to the jira issue by the fly ( for example: Fix Base64OutputStream MIME-0129) Cheers, Norman 2008/12/12 Ma

Re: [mime4j] Possible header field parsing problem

Markus Wiederkehr wrote: I think I have found a minor(?) issue when parsing header fields. RFC 822 defines a field as: field = field-name ":" [ field-body ] CRLF field-name = 1* .. which implies two things. First a field name must consist of at least one character. And second

Re: [mime4j] OutputStream support for StorageProvider?

On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 7:59 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Currently StorageProvider defines a method to create a Storage object > from an InputStream because an InputStream is what you get from > ContentHandler. > > But many libraries provide some kind of mechanism to write a d

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 5:49 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> The same happens with java.util.Set for example.

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The same happens with java.util.Set for example. Interface Set itself >> is not synchronized but there might be implementations that

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm sorry I don't quite understand that, do you have a link that >> describes the problem? The way I see it if a method is synchroniz

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 11/30/08, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >>> <[EMAIL PRO

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Does org.apache.james.mime4j.util.StringArrayMap serve any purpose? It >> does not seem to be used anywhere and in my opinion should be r

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Does org.apache.james.mime4j.util.StringArrayMap serve any purpose? It > does not seem to be used anywhere and in my opinion should be removed > or marked as deprecated.. I have just stumbled upon MIME4J-24. Maybe this

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 8:43 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/30/08, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mime4j/trunk/src/main/java/

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On 11/30/08, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mime4j/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/message/storage/MultiReferenceStorage.java >> uses method base

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On 11/30/08, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> it might be possible to avoid explicit synchronization by using >> AtomicInteger instead > > Sounds good but AtomicInteger is a Java 5 feature that wou

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > it might be possible to avoid explicit synchronization by using > AtomicInteger instead Sounds good but AtomicInteger is a Java 5 feature that would introduce a dependency on backport-util-concurrent.jar in the re

Re: [mime4j] MultiReferenceStorage Locking

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:59 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/james/mime4j/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/james/mime4j/message/storage/MultiReferenceStorage.java > uses method based synchronization to protect the reference counting > variable.

Re: [mime4j] improve support for creating and manipulating messages

On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Unfortunately I see no way to eliminate the parent reference in >> Entity.getMimeType(). >> >> Maybe someone has an idea? > > that d

Re: [mime4j] improve support for creating and manipulating messages

On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 6:19 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Markus Wiederkehr >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> 2) I believe it would be cool if a message Bod

Re: [mime4j] improve support for creating and manipulating messages

On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 11:40 PM, Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Markus Wiederkehr > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 2) I believe it would be cool if a message Body could be shared >> between Entities. This would open the door for creating a struct

Re: [mime4j] improve support for creating and manipulating messages

On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 9:01 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > First of all I want to thank Oleg for committing MIME4J-83 and 85. +1 and thanks to you for contributing it > Now that the source is based on Java 5 and StorageProvider is in I > would like to propose (and contribute

Re: [mime4j] Reopen MIME4J-77?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 9:20 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ... > > Done. Please review. Looks good, thanks! Markus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECT

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

Deprecated. To be removed in 0.7. Oleg On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 19:42 +0100, Norman Maurer wrote: > I think it would worth to deprecate it first... > > Cheers, > Norman > > 2008/11/17 Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTEC

Re: [mime4j] Reopen MIME4J-77?

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 15:10 +0100, Oleg Kalnichevski wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:42 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > wrote: > > > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:15 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > > >> With MIME4J-77 th

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

I think it would worth to deprecate it first... Cheers, Norman 2008/11/17 Robert Burrell Donkin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:23 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > >> Does org.apache.james.mime4j.

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 1:27 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:23 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >> Does org.apache.james.mime4j.util.StringArrayMap serve any purpose? It >> does not seem to be used anywhere and in my opinion should be removed >> or marked

Re: [mime4j] Reopen MIME4J-77?

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:42 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:15 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > >> With MIME4J-77 the decision was made to separate MimeException from > >> IOException and i

Re: [mime4j] Reopen MIME4J-77?

On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 2:28 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:15 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: >> With MIME4J-77 the decision was made to separate MimeException from >> IOException and introduce an adapter class MimeIOException which >> extends IOExcepti

Re: [mime4j] Reopen MIME4J-77?

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 14:15 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > With MIME4J-77 the decision was made to separate MimeException from > IOException and introduce an adapter class MimeIOException which > extends IOException. The Message constructor now throws IOException > and MimeIOException.. > > I j

Re: [mime4j] Remove StringArrayMap?

On Mon, 2008-11-17 at 13:23 +0100, Markus Wiederkehr wrote: > Does org.apache.james.mime4j.util.StringArrayMap serve any purpose? It > does not seem to be used anywhere and in my opinion should be removed > or marked as deprecated.. > +1 Oleg > Markus > > --

Re: [mime4j] Retrotranslator for Java 5

Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Do we care about 1.4 compatibility at all give the results of the poll? What >> is the reason for maintaining a 1.4 compatible version? > > Personally I don't care about 1.4 and I don'

Re: [mime4j] Retrotranslator for Java 5

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 11:37 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Do we care about 1.4 compatibility at all give the results of the poll? What > is the reason for maintaining a 1.4 compatible version? Personally I don't care about 1.4 and I don't believe many users will, too. On th

Re: [mime4j] Retrotranslator for Java 5

Stefano Bagnara wrote: Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: I am trying to use the Retrotranslator Maven plugin to create a JRE 1.4 compatible version of Mime4j after the source code has been migrated to Java 5. The byte-code translation seems to work and the resulting class files are version 48 (1.4).

Re: [mime4j] Retrotranslator for Java 5

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > What pom snippet did you add for retrotranslating and what version of > the plugin(and retrotranslator itself) are you using? In my local repository I have retrotranslator 1.2.4 and retrotranslator-maven-plugin 1.0-alph

Re: [mime4j] Retrotranslator for Java 5

Markus Wiederkehr ha scritto: > I am trying to use the Retrotranslator Maven plugin to create a JRE > 1.4 compatible version of Mime4j after the source code has been > migrated to Java 5. The byte-code translation seems to work and the > resulting class files are version 48 (1.4). So far so good..

Re: [mime4j] MimeException in Field.parse()

On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 9:50 PM, Markus Wiederkehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, Nov 9, 2008 at 10:35 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I personally prefer a subclass of Throwable to express some kind of >> exceptional condition, but could live with InvalidField or some such

  1   2   3   4   5   6   >