On 9/24/07, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bernd Fondermann ha scritto: > > On 9/23/07, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >> > >> robert burrell donkin-2 wrote: > >>> this is the problem with lots of small patches: i don't understand > >>> where you are taking the design > >>> > >> In general, non-committers are expected to split their work up into smaller > >> patches, because it helps the reviewers. > > > > Generally, yes. But if you'd like to present an alternative > > experimental design as a whole, we could as well grant you a sandbox. > > BTW, this would be the appropriate approach for such efforts even for > > committers. > > > > Bernd > > As far as I've understood until now the "whole new design" was from > Robert. Jochen patches are small performance improvement over the > current design. > > The main problem is that Jochen patches make it more difficult to keep > supporting the new design from Robert (or at least make the whole thing > less "clean") > > I don't know what design is better for mime4j and I didn't analyze the > patches in depth to judge their quality. What I can tell is that Jochen > patches serve a specific concrete purpose (commons-upload integration > and its needed capabilities) while I feel Robert ones more abstract. I > guess Robert "design" is related to specific IMAP usage, so it would > probably help (me) to understand what IMAP features are involved by this > design decisions (and how).
i'm not too bothered about the current design: it was just a stepping stone as long as jochen understands the additional use cases and either takes them into account with his design or accepts that we may rewrite later to take them into account then that's good enough for me. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
