Oleg Kalnichevski ha scritto:
On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 20:21 +0200, Stefano Bagnara wrote:
Oleg Kalnichevski ha scritto:
Not only does this change completely reverts the performance gains and
makes the whole refactroring exercise completely pointless due to an
utterly inefficient implementation of EOLConvertingInputStream, it is
also conceptually wrong (in my humble opinion), as it causes mime4j to
corrupt 8bit encoded 'application/octet-stream' content. This basically
renders mime4j incompatible with commons browsers and HttpClient
The performance of the EOLConvertingInputStream is not important at all
if removing it we have an unusable library. So let's talk about what we
expect from the library, then we'll discuss how to make it performant. I
believe we have technical skills to make a performant EOLConverting stream.
About the 8bit encoded 'application/octet-stream' I think we just need
to find the right RFC telling us what we have to do: the RFC I read
about MIME and its applications always tell that CR and LF must not be
alone and that the appropriate transfer encoding have to be used in
order to avoid isolated LF and CR: it is not a matter of personal
preferences, it is a matter of rfc compliance. Let's find the docs, first.
What I can find as definition of "8bit" (RFC-2045 Section 2.8) is:
-------------------
"8bit data" refers to data that is all represented as relatively
short lines with 998 octets or less between CRLF line separation
sequences [RFC-821]), but octets with decimal values greater than 127
may be used. As with "7bit data" CR and LF octets only occur as part
of CRLF line separation sequences and no NULs are allowed.
-------------------
Stefano,
You are very welcome to impose whatever strict interpretation of the
relevant RFCs are your hearts desires. Just please leave on option
allowing to override it so that the mime4j parser could be used to parse
real-world content.
Oleg, don't take me wrong. I simply want to make sure we all understand
what RFC say and understand the specific cases we are ignoring it and WHY.
In the case of outer boundary we introduced backward compatibility
issues in the name of performance mainly because of lack of knowledge of
the RFCs. I'm not an expert, too, but I think it is important to at
least take them into consideration once we find the right docs.
I'm not saying that we MUST be 100% compliant and strict, but I want to
make sure we know when we are doing something not compliant and that we
agree that it is good.
One of the main goal is interoperability, so everytime we do something
different from what RFC tell us we have to make sure we are not breaking
interoperability with other RFC compliant tools.
I'm far from being a MIME expert, so I find it difficult to keep up with
this discussion if I have to convince people of something. I just want
to share my little knowledge about the (mainly SMTP related) RFCs.
Stefano
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
