Sanjiva, On 7/18/05, Sanjiva Weerawarana <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, 2005-07-18 at 06:27 -0400, Davanum Srinivas wrote: > > Thilina, > > > > i'd suggest you concentrate on cleaning up the code for MTOM and > > writing more test cases with actual assert statements while we > > research this a bit more. > > You do agree with the principle of getting the faulty impl corrected, > right?
if we determine that it is faulty. then yes. let's not change it for now. > > for example > > - there are so many while loops which don't check if there are any > > more characters in the stream > > - are u handling unsupposted media exception? are we throwing it. are > > we catching it? are we handling all the exceptions in the specs? are > > there test cases for it? > > - are we handling all the http status codes specified in mtom/xop specs? > > - why are we createing intermediate ByteArrayOutputstreams and putting > > things in them. what is going to happen if we get 1 GB attachment or > > 512 MB soap part? there should not be any intermediate storage > > especially of things that are likely to grow. > > +1 for cleaning up the code. > > > - was there any effort to at least architect the code so that we can > > add mime and SwA later when we get a chance? > > A XOP message is supposed to be wire-compatible with SwA. Is that not > the case? > > What did you mean by "mime"? typo i meant dime > > - Can we get rid of httptransportsender as we talked about earlier? > > and so on.... > > Not directly MTOM related .. in progress but slow week this week because > Ajith, Chathura and Eran are all at AC Europe. > > Sanjiva. > > > -- Davanum Srinivas -http://blogs.cocoondev.org/dims/
