On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 09:52 -0500, Glen Daniels wrote: > Hi dims: > > > May be i am missing something...the difference in my mind is a person > > implementing a databinding layer should be able to access the > > attachements without having to build the om tree. straight from stax > > to java objects with no om and use whatever they need to store the > > attachments byte arrays or data handlers or some databinding specific > > construct.
What's buffered are the bytes of the MIME root part that contains the SOAP envelope. I agree we shouldn't build the tree for that part (and I'm pretty certain we don't) until its needed but the bytes have to be read and buffered. Unless you guys know of some magic technology I don't see how that can be done any other way ;-) .. a stream is ordered you know and those bytes come after these bytes. Simple as that. > +1. OM was built to allow you to optimize out the > tree-building/buffering for the normal XML case - you call > getXMLStreamReaderWithoutCaching() and go. MTOM/attachments are sort of > the fly in the ointment there, in that you need another layer below StAX > in order to get at the attachments. We've got that layer now, but it's > hidden and tightly coupled to the OM tree framework. The suggestion is > simply to open it up so you can do exactly what dims describes here. Ah ok that part I agree with .. that getting to the MIME data via the MIMEHelper is a good thing. Is that what you're looking for? Sanjiva.
