On Fri, Jul 4, 2008 at 10:21 AM, Sahan Gamage <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Manjula, > > How about HTTP 1.0 case ? I think we should still support HTTP 1.0 and > it does not support chunking IIRC. Also what happens in SMTP case > (once/if we have it in place) ? SMTP transport binding for SOAP1.1/1,2 doesn't define any chucking mechanism.The soap body is sent as a packed MIME message. -Rajika I think MTOM implementation should be > somewhat (not completely) transport independent and if the underlying > transport supports whatever features (chunking, compression ...etc) we > should use it. But we shouldn't make it mandatory to use features that > are specific to some transports. > > Just my 2c > > Thanks > -sahan > > On 7/3/08, Manjula Peiris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I was able to fix MTOM caching stuff for both sender and receiving ends. > > In sender side instead of loading the whole attachment it will send the > > attachment + data as chunked. Only very small portion of the attachment > > will be loaded in to the memory at any given time. In order to achieve > > this I did some axiom level changes and transport level changes.Because > > the way of constructing what to send when it is chunked and not chunked > > is far different I propose we send MTOM only with chunking. So when > > sending MTOM Axis2/C will automatically switch on chunking. Remember in > > the receiving side it will accept both chunked and dechunked data. WDYT? > > > > Thanks, > > -Manjula. > > > > -- > > Manjula Peiris: http://manjula-peiris.blogspot.com/ > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > 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] > > -- comp.lang.c - http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.c/topics
