[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-30?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12529186
]
Jochen Wiedmann commented on MIME4J-30:
---------------------------------------
I do not understand your last comment, Robert. Why do you not like the
getInputStream(boolean)? IMO, supplying the boolean variable to the constructor
is a *very* bad solution, because typically you want to decode in very few
cases (for example when a special transfer-encoding is used). Within the
constructor you do not know the transfer-encoding. However, when invoking
getInputStream(boolean) you have all required informations.
> Transfer-encoding should be transparent
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: MIME4J-30
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-30
> Project: Mime4j
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.3
> Reporter: Jochen Wiedmann
> Assignee: Robert Burrell Donkin
> Fix For: 0.4
>
> Attachments: mime4j-transfer-encoding.patch,
> mime4j-transfer-encoding.patch
>
>
> Currently the mime4j user must be aware of the transfer-encoding header.
> a) This is inconvenient. I can think of no reason, why a user should want the
> encoded data stream.
> b) This blocks MIME4J-27 in the following sense: If a user configures a limit
> on the attachments size,
> then this should most possibly limit the decoded attachments size. But
> Mime4j can only track
> the decoded attachments size, if it is itself responsible for decoding.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
