John Keyes schrieb:
For (a), Oleg's response is correct. You might easily be confused,
in the sense that HttpClient's API inverts the control. It is not
that you write to an "OutputStream" to send your data, it is that
you provide HttpClient with an "InputStream", and it reads that
stream and sends the data. HttpClient is designed to accomodate your
concern, and if your configuration is correct (as per the examples),
it will not buffer the entire contents of your InputStream, but
rather read it and send it in small chunks. As another post points
you, you may still have to buffer what you're sending to *disk*, but
not to memory.
So you think buffering all requests to disk to support streaming is
an acceptable solution? If I am dealing with XXX,000 of requests
that sure as hell would suck with all the disk I/O going on. Does
this not suggest that there is a problem with the architecture?
I am missing something here from both views. Maybe I am wrong but as I
understand it, I can provide any InputStream. And that must not be a
file on disk (which I dislike also - except for large files or live
streams that cannot be put to memory in total) but can be any object in
memory. So in case of sending it there should be no problem.. Correct?
Best Regards,
Stefan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
