On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 4:08 PM, Oleg Kalnichevski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Robert Burrell Donkin wrote: >> >> i'm unhappy about the impact of this resolution for direct users of this >> method >> > > Robert, > > What would you like done differently?
it's quite a change for a public API given that mail protocol users may be relying on catching that MimeException. i dislike throwing runtimes because this usually means that the processing is dead and the mail will be impossible to process. unreadable fields can usually be ignored when processing so recovery is possible. i'd prefer to see a name change for the field to go with the change in behaviour, that way it's obvious that it's changed. i haven't followed all the discussions too deeply so there may some other strategies which may works equally well. maintaining the original method might also be useful if it's used elsewhere in James (i'll need to check that). (it also needs to be documented etc but i'm happy to dive in and fix that) - robert --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
