On Jan 18, 2013, at 11:14 AM, Sergey Beryozkin <sberyozkin_at_talend.com> wrote:
> On 17/01/13 23:11, Bill Burke wrote:
>> I still think getSize() should be banned/deprecated/ignored. Except for
>> primitives, String, and byte[] the only way getSize() can be calculated
>> is by buffering the entire message body and finding the length. Not only
>> that, but getSize() is called *BEFORE* writeTo().
>>
>> I think gzip encoding has a much higher probability of being used than
>> any application that might require Content-Length.
> We have a user right now reporting the regression due to his client application not seeing Content-Length any more where he knows that his application does not uses GZIP and returns byte arrays (byte[]).
I'm sorry, but this does not seem to be the problem of the API or ignoring getSize(). Sure there is a way how you can include the C-L header even if you ignore getSize(). We all (implementors) have to find our ways how to do it...
>
> IMHO the 'probability' is not a good indicator of how useful getSize() can be. I think the default providers should use -1 by default, but let users configure their binary MBW when needed - all stacks offer the integration options where injection specific properties into providers can be possible so I'm not see any issues with keeping this method
Again: It's IMO much better to ignore getSize and deal with the C-L value in another (more robust) way than to go into complications of defining a conditional support for getSize().
Marek
> Sergey
>
>>
>> On 1/17/2013 6:00 PM, Sergey Beryozkin wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> two issues popped up recently during the internal discussions, where
>>> getSize() might be handy, possible HTTP Range support at the custom MBW
>>> level, and in cases where Content-Length is explicitly expected on the
>>> client side, so why returning something different than -1 from getSize()
>>> won't work with GZIP and such, the users should still have the option to
>>> return a positive value when it is known it will work
>>>
>>> Thanks, Sergey
>>> On 04/06/12 17:58, Bill Burke wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 6/4/12 10:38 AM, Santiago Pericas-Geertsen wrote:
>>>>>> I fixed a bug a few months ago where our container set the
>>>>>> Content-Length header based on MBW.getSize() and we had gzip encoding
>>>>>> on, so the value Content-Length ended up being wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> What if we state that JAX-RS implementations must not update
>>>>> Content-Length after calling writeTo()?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't cut it I don't think.
>>>>
>>>> Is my above case a problem with Resteasy? Or a problem with getSize()?
>>>> Content-Length reflects the actual bits on the wire right? So, if there
>>>> is any type of encoding, won't getSize() always be wrong?
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>