There are, in other words, only about 15 lines of code that are
relevant: here they are:
1.1.1. MultipartFile
public interface MultipartFile
extends Serializable {
public long getSize();
public void setSize(long fileSize);
public String getName();
public void setName(String fileName);
public String getContentType();
public void setContentType(String fileContentType);
public byte[] getData();
public InputStream getInputStream();
public void reset();
}
1.1.2. MultipartData
public interface MultipartData {
public Iterator getParameterNames();
public String getParameter(String name);
public String[] getParameterValues(String name);
public Map getFiles();
}
1.1.3. MultipartHandler
public interface MultipartHandler {
public void handleRequest(Object [] params) throws IOException;
public ActionMapping getMapping();
public void setMapping(ActionMapping mapping);
public ActionServlet getServlet();
public void setServlet(ActionServlet servlet);
}
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:38:00 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Thanks, Martin, but I think that your suggestion is not related to
> what I am trying to do.
>
> I have gotten rid of code in the last formulation to make this clear.
>
> Only the first three interfaces are really important and nothing has
> changed in those ever. What I am suggesting is using those interfaces
> so that alternative applications can be used.
>
> The particular application provided is just to show that it can be
> done and is done. So, the changes are irrelevant to what I am
> suggesting.
>
> I won't change it anymore.
>
> The first day this code was presented is as sufficient as today.
>
> I only made changes in hopes of getting some response. It is ironic
> that it has had the opposite affect.
>
> You probably are the only one relevant to this anyway, and I assumed
> that you would get this straight-off, as I am sure you have?
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 09:15:51 -0800, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm not sure how many of the committers relish the idea of reading
> > through about 1,000 lines of completely uncommented code and trying to
> > understand what it all means. And that on a wiki page, rather than in
> > their favourite editor where they would have syntax colouring and
> > could jump around at will, from definition to usage, etc., to help
> > understand it. Add to that almost 40 updates to the wiki page in the
> > last 10 days, and there's even less incentive to start looking at it,
> > fully expecting a flurry of updates before they've got much beyond the
> > first paragraph.
> >
> > I would suggest that you finish your work on it first, then put the
> > code somewhere that people can download and bring up in their editor,
> > and have a wiki page that explains what you're trying to do and that
> > points to the code download. That's much more likely to get people
> > looking at it, at least in my opinion.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:29:19 -0800, Dakota Jack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Frank. I posted this code in response to Ted's suggestion
> > > that this is the way to go to establish a dialogue with the committers
> > > on code.
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
> > > ~Dakota Jack~
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> --
> "You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
> ~Dakota Jack~
>
--
"You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it float on its back."
~Dakota Jack~
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
