On Tue, 2008-03-18 at 03:49 +0530, Samisa Abeysinghe wrote: > Thilina Gunarathne wrote: > >> However, the real issue is how are we going to implement "parse it for > >> MIME, and then cache it and move on". I still think that it is better to > >> stick to Thilina's viewpoint in having each attachment cached as a > >> separate file. And, each attachment should be cached, even if it is small > >> or large, when the content-length exceeds the threshold. > >> > > What I proposed is not based on the content-length.. It's based on the > > size of a particular attachment. We calculate the size while parsing. > > If the size exceeds a certain limit then put everything to file. > > > > Also you might want to consider deferred parsing of attachments. That > > means read the attachment for the stream only when needed. Similar in > > concept to StAX parsing of XML. > > > > > >> This is because > >> many small attachments == one big attachment. > >> > > Good point.. > > > I do not think so. You do not get mime boundaries in the middle. So the > parsing and buffering implications are different.
When there are multiple attachments don't you get mime boundaries in the middle of the message ? > > Samisa... > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
