On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 8:17 AM, Danny Angus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think ... org.apache.mailet for things in the mailet project. > org.apache.james.mailet for anything in server. > If that opinion helps in any way! > > d. > > > > On Sun, Nov 2, 2008 at 12:29 PM, Stefano Bagnara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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.
i think there's consensus about using org.apache.mailet.base for Mailet Base. let's discuss the others as they are ready. unless someone jumps in sometime soon, i'm going to go ahead and repackage. - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
