I don't see plugability as being a requirement. A streaming
encoder/decoder is a larger requirement as the data being encoded into a
multipart message could be quite large and forcing the user to store it
in memory wouldn't be very nice. I'm doing some more re-working on the
codec-multipart code so it supports streams as well. I tried emailing
Mark directly, I'll see what he says about the whole thing when he gets
back to me. Once I get a better re-work of the code done what should I
do? I'm very interesting in adding this code to the codec project.
-Eric Dalquist
Gary Gregory wrote:
Thinking more about the structure of the Encoder and Decoder
interfaces
I've never been crazy about these various interfaces. In our company's
product at least, we've never needed pluggable impls. Some of the Codecs
are so different that it does not look like being able to replace one
with another makes sense. OTOH, having interfaces gives you the option
of using and creating pluggable guys, which is fine.
All of this to say that I would not initially worry that much about
fitting a new package in these interfaces unless you believe that
"plugability" is a requirement.
of the encoder would be via an InputStream.
This is indeed quite different from the current design. There have been
discussions on this list about stateful and streamable decoder.
Perhaps now is the time to revive these discussions.
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dalquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 11:26
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [codec-multipart] Who's In Charge
Sorry about that last reply being to the wrong email.
Thinking more about the structure of the Encoder and Decoder
interfaces
I need to discuss what I see as the requirements on a multipart
encoder
with you or someone else who is more familiar with the codec package
and
get your options.
The basic idea is you have a Part interface. From that there is a
StringPart and a FilePart.
The MultipartEncoder would need to take an array of Parts and encode
them into a multipart message. One big difference is because of the
possible size of a multipart message the preferred way to get the
output
of the encoder would be via an InputStream. This would allow the
message
to be constructed on the fly and written to the caller. The caller
could
then write the data directly out to whatever needs it, keeping memory
usage down to a minimum. I'm not sure how this method of encoding
would
be handled by the current Encoder interface.
Also for decoding the opposite would be true. The decoder would need
to
read it's data from an InputStream and return an array of parts. The
decoder would provide the option for file data to be written to a user
specified temp directory so the only data stored in the Part objects
would be a reference to the temp file via a File object.
Let me know what you think of this.
-Eric Dalquist
Gary Gregory wrote:
Hello,
The only person I see in codec-multipart/project.xml is:
<developer>
<name>Mark Diggory</name>
<id>mdiggory</id>
<email>mdiggory at apache.org</email>
</developer>
I am the codec 1.3 release manager for now and I cannot say much
about
multipart apart from knowing that it exists and that volunteers are
welcome.
Perhaps you could discuss on this list the pros and cons for a
multipart
addition to the next feature release of codec. A proposal type of
thing
;-)
Gary
-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Dalquist [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 10:29
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: [codec-multipart] Who's In Charge
I'm wondering who I should talk about about the codex-multipart
project
in the commons sandbox. I have some changes that I really would like
to
discuss with the maintainer.
-Eric Dalquist
Eric Dalquist wrote:
I needed to find a way to reconstruct a submitted multipart form
from
the files and parameters stored in temp locations. I was directed
to
the codec-multipart code and found it did part of what I wanted. I
did
make some rather extensive changes to the way it functions to make
it
fit my application.
The big issues I had were with the inability to control the
boundary
and the fact that by using static methods for a majority of the
work
the code was not threadsafe. I would be more that willing to submit
my
changes for review and make modifications to the architecture as
needed to get the code accepted into the codec-multipart project.
Please let me know two who or where I should upload the modified
source.
-Eric Dalquist
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
