Robert Burrell Donkin ha scritto: > (as can be seen at > http://james.apache.org/mailet/base/apidocs/index.html) base mailet > has quite a lot of packages for such a small library. they also seem > quite messy - and so unlikely to play well with OSGi (for example). > > perhaps we should take this opportunity to rationalise into a single package > > ATM we have > org.apache.james.util.mailet > org.apache.mailet > org.apache.mailet.dates > > i can see an argument for org.apache.mailet.base but there perhaps > org.apache.mailet should be reserved just for the API. in which case > org.apache.james.mailet.base might be better. > > opinions?
Make sense. As we already started using "org.apache.mailet" as a top level package name for mailet stuff maybe org.apache.mailet.base is better. org.apache.mailet.standard org.apache.mailet.crypto. All of that code should work in any mailet container and have no other dependencies on james products (IIRC). That said I'm also fine with org.apache.james.mailet.base. Stefano --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
