Re: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-16 Thread jerome lacoste
On 6/16/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As I understand it, by the time you call getInputStream(), the user's POST > request is already entirely in the server's memory space, or it has been > written to disk. This data isn't consumed when you read() it,

Re: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-15 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > As I understand it, by the time you call getInputStream(), the user's POST > request is already entirely in the server's memory space, or it has been > written to disk. This data isn't consumed when you read() it, so why can't > you get another InputStream over it? No.

RE: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-15 Thread James.Ring
Hi Jochen, > -Original Message- > From: Jochen Wiedmann [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, 15 June 2006 10:49 PM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming > > Because the nature of streaming i

Re: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-15 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Why do you want to throw an IllegalStateException on subsequent invocations > of getInputStream()? Because the nature of streaming implies, that the data can be returned only once (as opposed to the FileItem where getInputStream() may be called as often as you like, eac

RE: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-14 Thread James.Ring
PLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming > > > > Hi, > > As you can see, the FileItem can be changed to extend SlimFileItem. > Additionally, FileItem has a semantic difference: It allows to invoke > getInputStream() more than once, while SlimFileItem should th

Re: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-11 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
Martin Cooper wrote: > Let's hope. ;-) Please add youself to the list of developers in the > project.xml file. Done. > This looks interesting. However, given the non-trivial nature of the > changes, and the "stylistic" effect on the way FileUpload works, I > wonder if > this wouldn't be better

Re: [FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-10 Thread Martin Cooper
On 6/9/06, Jochen Wiedmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, first of all, let me say thanks for giving me the possibility to contribute to the project as a committer. Let's hope, I'll be doing fine. ;-) Let's hope. ;-) Please add youself to the list of developers in the project.xml file. As

[FILEUPLOAD] RfC: Proposed API changes for streaming

2006-06-09 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
Hi, first of all, let me say thanks for giving me the possibility to contribute to the project as a committer. Let's hope, I'll be doing fine. ;-) As already written, the changes required for streaming are nontrivial. I'd like to discuss them even if I were an experienced project member. Which I