On 9/21/07, Noel J. Bergman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: > > Jochen Wiedmann wrote: > > > robert burrell donkin-2 wrote: > > > > i'd like to gauge opinions about whether anyone else feels strongly > > > > about supporting non-streaming inputs for MimeTokenStream. i've been > > > > keeping this in mind whilst reviewing jochen's patches but this has > > > > lead to conflicts about the design > > > > (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-30). the price of > > > > support will be greater complexity. > > > > > > What are "non-streaming inputs"? If you are referring to java.nio: The > > > patch I am developing (keep in mind: This patch is *not* the issue in > > MIME4J-30) was developed specifically with java.nio in mind. However, my > > > patch is not even proposed. Why do we discuss it *before* I post my > > > proposal? > > > > because if no one but me cares then there's little point in me > > obstructing your patches for what are design reasons > > Let's have some technical discussion, please. I'm not sure that I've seen > enough to understand the dispute.
it's really about objectives and aims rather than technical designs i wonder whether it's worthwhile having what's probably going to be a long technical discussion about a design for a unified parser for both streams and non-streams. if no one else really feels strongly about non-streaming implementations then it's probably best for me to drop this goal, revert the changes i've made to allow support for efficient non-streaming and let jochen optimize mime4j just for streams. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
