On 11/28/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/27/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Sorry Martin, I'm probably driving you mad. I just attached the 3rd patch > > before I saw you'd accepted the second :-( > > > > I'll go away now. > > > ;-) > > Actually, the second is more robust than the third in any case, since the > default location for these files is the container's temp directory, which is > very likely to be cleaned out on a server restart. And if the default isn't > used, all bets are off anyway.
If the default is used and the container's temp directory is cleared out - then the 2nd patch is stuffed as well - it'll try and copy a file that doesn't exist. > I'm still apprehensive about the performance implications, if people don't > think about what they're doing, but at least now DiskFileItem adheres to its > contract. I agree, and I think they'll be alot not so large files that'll now work well. Although the best solution was your original comment - don't stick the FileItem in the Session :-) You look like you have FileUpload heading towards a release? > Martin Cooper > > > Niall > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
