On 11/27/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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.
Ah, right. Oh well. > 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? That's the general idea, yes. I've temporarily abandoned the enhancements I had in the wings, on the basis that what's in SVN now has been there so long, it's stable, and people need a released version, especially the folks who need portlet support. The bugs are fixed, so it's pretty close, I think. -- Martin Cooper > Martin Cooper > > > > > > Niall > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
