DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG· RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT <http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37445>. ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND· INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37445 ------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2005-11-10 16:22 ------- (In reply to comment #2) > Even though Part.isRepeatable() is not abstract you can still override it, > can't > you? Yes I can, but it would require to subclass FilePart just to override isRepeatable(), whereas is it is delegated to PartSource, I would just have to return the correct value for my createInputStream implementation. For now (3.0) I will try to make my PartSource repeatable (ie able to create new InputStream on demand) but I cannot assure I will be able to. In such case, I will have to implement my non-repeatable in two separate location, half in my FilePart subclass (isRepeatable), half in my PartSource implementation (createInputStream). The interface change is only really needed in PartSource, adding the isRepeatable() method. FilePart can (for now) override isRepeatable() to delegate it to its PartSource. But Part.isRepeatable() should be abstract, as is sendData(), to indicate to any Part implementation that both must be concordant. -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
