Re: RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-04 Thread Oleg Kalnichevski
On Wed, 2007-07-04 at 07:42 +0200, Jochen Wiedmann wrote: On 7/4/07, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * We were already starting to clone classes from what was originally HttpClient and is now HttpComponents. One example is the ParameterParser class. When I saw HttpComponents being

Re: RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-04 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On 7/4/07, Oleg Kalnichevski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: You may want to take a look at Apache JAMES Mime4j [1] Thanks for the hint, I'm gonna have a look on it. The streaming approach sounds good. -- Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in a preventative effect

RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-03 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
Hi, when applying the fixes for IO-99 to commons-fileupload, I was originally under the impression, that this would be easily possible without any or at least with fully upward compliant API changes. Until I detected that for reasons, which absolutely escape me, someone made FileItem to

Re: RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-03 Thread Ben Speakmon
+1. Removing deprecations is a worthy cause for a major release in and of itself. In fact, I'd suggest that removing deprecated and/or obviously wrong code is a necessary precursor to a redesign. Plus redesigns always scare me, since you never seem to get what you were expecting. :) On 7/3/07,

Re: [fileupload] RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-03 Thread Stephen Colebourne
Jochen Wiedmann wrote: when applying the fixes for IO-99 to commons-fileupload, I was originally under the impression, that this would be easily possible without any or at least with fully upward compliant API changes. Until I detected that for reasons, which absolutely escape me, someone made

Re: [fileupload] RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-03 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On 7/3/07, Stephen Colebourne [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read the JIRA's and I don't understand why FileItem/Serializable is relevant. As such I'm struggling to understand this thread :-) It's a design problem. When the DiskFileItem is instantiated, the File isn't necessarily created yet.

Re: RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-03 Thread Martin Cooper
On 7/3/07, Jochen Wiedmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi, when applying the fixes for IO-99 to commons-fileupload, I was originally under the impression, that this would be easily possible without any or at least with fully upward compliant API changes. Until I detected that for reasons, which

Re: RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?

2007-07-03 Thread Jochen Wiedmann
On 7/4/07, Martin Cooper [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * We were already starting to clone classes from what was originally HttpClient and is now HttpComponents. One example is the ParameterParser class. When I saw HttpComponents being born, saw a lot of other stuff in there that FileUpload was