Rather than modify the old WOAdaptor, an alternative option is to write a WOAdaptor. ERWOAdaptor is already there, and it's based on netty. Personally, I consider that a better way forward, but right now, it is also limited in file size because it uses the chunked decoder.
I believe it could be updated to support large file sizes, but 1) I haven't had the time to try and 2) I haven't had the problem :-) I was more interested in making websockets work when I was working on it last year. I recently updated the websocket implementation to support the latest spec. I didn't have any luck finding a large file upload example while I was doing it, so it's still limited to 100Mb uploads. Ramsey On Jun 19, 2012, at 2:30 AM, Johann Werner wrote: > Apparently no one has tried to modify/override the involved classes yet so I > made some additions to Wonder by reimplementing the smallest possible number > of classes to support upload streams > 2.1GB. These are > > WOHttpIO > WOMultipartIterator > WONoCopyPushbackInputStream > > leaving NSRange as it is as that class is used in many places and changing > the API from int to long would involve many dependent fixes. For those > wanting to try out these changes and help in testing/modifying the code get > the corresponding wonder branch [1]. I attached an Eclipse project that can > be used to test the upload. Just pick a big file or create one with > > dd if=/dev/zero of=big_file.bin bs=1g count=3 > > (this will create a 3GB file 'big_file.bin') > > Some observations I made: > > - using DirectConnect everything works as expected > - Firefox cannot correctly upload files > 2.1GB [2] as the variable used for > the content-length header is an int (doh!), the header length is added to the > file length so the file cannot be exactly (2^32 - 1) > - passing through Apache the upload stream is interrupted sometimes -> > timeout/problem within mod_WebObjects? > > > Please share your thoughts > > jw > > > > [1] https://github.com/darkv/wonder/tree/big_files_upload > [2] https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215450 > > <UploadDownloadTest.zip> > > > Am 14.06.2012 um 18:55 schrieb Helmut Tschemernjak: > >> >> Downloading large files works fine, for uploads there are several bugs in >> the WO code. I reported it via the Apple bug reporter some time ago. Problem >> ID: 10765546 >> >> There is no workaround, here is some input in case somebody from Apple is >> looking into it: >> >> The class com.webobjects.appserver._private.WOHttpIO tries to parse the >> content-length header with the method parseInt of the Integer class. This >> will fail for all files larger than 2.1GB. Further there are many instances >> in the code that make use of an integer for the content length of a request: >> WOInputStreamData: public WOInputStreamData(InputStream, int) >> WORequest: public int _contentLengthHeader() >> Also classes not directly involved in the request handling do show such a >> limitation (e.g. public NSRange(int, int)). >> >> PS: looking forward to see many of you at WOWODC 2012 in Montreal >> >> Regards >> >> Helmut Tschemernjak >> >> >> On 13.06.12 09:45, Johann Werner wrote: >>> Just hitting the same problem for uploading files > 5GB. Does anyone has >>> already done some work relating to that problem? >>> >>> >>> Am 05.03.2012 um 00:51 schrieb Q: >>> >>>> On 05/03/2012, at 9:40 AM, Lachlan Deck wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hey Alan, >>>>> >>>>> On 05/03/2012, at 9:32 AM, Alan Ward wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Speaking for myself (and definitely not on behalf of my employer) I'm >>>>>> curious where you are coming from here? Did you have a contract that >>>>>> obligated Apple to continue to support you? What grounds to you believe >>>>>> you have for a law suit? I'm just curious. >>>>> Yes it's a somewhat comical notion :-) >>>>> >>>>> Just to make your point/question clearer for people: the said product was >>>>> supplied for free for the last few releases. So if people were to sue for >>>>> damages, it would need to be a very strong case indeed! I'm sure Apple >>>>> would be happy to supply a full refund ;-) >>>>> >>>>> More seriously, I think the sentiment is coming from promises (or assumed >>>>> promises) that were made when, for example, the Xcode tools were dropped. >>>>> The reasoning given was to concentrate on enhancing the frameworks. Thus >>>>> the initial impression given to the community by Apple (bolstered by its >>>>> funding of tools like WOLips) was that a renewed energy was being put >>>>> into WO by Apple that people could continue to build their business apps >>>>> with. And, there was some initial promise of better community involvement >>>>> in the evolution of WO when the Apple maven repo was made available >>>>> (which showed some future versions in the works). It didn't last long >>>>> though which was a shame at the time, especially for us maven users. Hmm >>>>> so, perhaps it was the community's unwillingness to embrace maven that >>>>> canned it moving forward :-) >>>> What are you trying to say? Maven killed WebObjects? Why am I not >>>> surprised. :) >>>> >>>>> cheers, >>>>> Lachlan Deck >>> > > > _______________________________________________ > Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. > Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) > Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: > https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/ramseygurley%40gmail.com > > This email sent to ramseygur...@gmail.com _______________________________________________ Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored. Webobjects-dev mailing list (Webobjects-dev@lists.apple.com) Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/webobjects-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
