Howdy Jakub,
Thanks for reviewing this patch.
I will try to add tests you mentioned about. Also thanks about the tip with
fail() - I didn't add it to my own tests, but I see a rationale behind using
it right now.
Cheers!
2011/10/13 Jakub Podlesak <jakub.podlesak_at_oracle.com>
> **
> Hi Pedro,
>
> The patch looks good!
>
> I am going to feed it to our internal formal review tool
> and commit to the main trunk afterward.
>
> Some more (one bigger and another minor) things bellow:
>
> 1. I noticed that (and it also applies to FileDataBodyPart class)
> the tests only cover "constructor works fine" stuff.
> Would you be willing to also contribute some more tests to get
> at least the "and also works fine with multipart reader/writer" stuff
> covered?
>
> 2. a minor comment: i suggest to fix the tests where an exception is
> expected from:
>
> try {
> expectedToThrow();
> } catch (ExpectedException e) {
> }
>
> to
>
> try {
> expectedToThrow();
> fail(); // should never get here
> } catch (ExpectedException e) {
> }
>
> but that i will fix by myself, no need to send updated diff for that.
>
>
> And again: many thanks for your contribution!
>
> ~Jakub
>
>
>
> On 5.10.2011 9:35, Pedro Kowalski wrote:
>
> Sure thing Jakub,
>
> Will wait for your review.
> Have a nice time at J1 - I envy you - at least I can read some news from
> Twitter :-)
>
> Cheers!
>
>
> 2011/10/4 Jakub Podlesak <jakub.podlesak_at_oracle.com>
>
>> Hi Pedro,
>>
>> Thanks for the patch!
>>
>> I apologize for delayed response. Attending J1 this week.
>> Will try to have a look and get back to you.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~Jakub
>>
>>
>> On 29.9.2011 15:34, Palli wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've attached the patch to the JIRA:
>> http://java.net/jira/browse/JERSEY-777
>> It adds the support for sending InputStream as a multipart/form-data body
>> part entity, which I think is more adequate and still can be used for byte[]
>> with ByteArrayInputStream.
>>
>> Can anyone take a look if it's acceptable?
>>
>> Cheers!
>> Pedro
>>
>> On 09/21/2011 07:41 PM, Jakub Podlesak wrote:
>>
>> Thanks. Looking forward to your contribution.
>> Please keep the list posted if you have any question.
>>
>> ~Jakub
>>
>> On 21.9.2011 18:09, Palli wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jakub,
>>
>> Great, there is a JIRA for this enhancement:
>> http://java.net/jira/browse/JERSEY-777
>>
>> As soon as I'll be able I'll take a look at it, as I'm quite fancy getting
>> known Jersey :-)
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Pedro
>>
>> On 09/21/2011 02:46 PM, Jakub Podlesak wrote:
>>
>> Hi Pedro,
>>
>> +1 for the 2. option.
>>
>> And yes, contributions are warmly welcome.
>> Please file a RFE, and attach a patch there.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> ~Jakub
>>
>> On 21.9.2011 12:05, pallipp_at_gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Howdy!
>>
>> I think it would be nice if we could have an additional support for
>> byte[] instead of just flat File objects in FormDataBodyPart. I think
>> there are situations in which we don't need to hit the disk before
>> sending the data through the wire (or do we?)
>>
>> According to the javadoc [1] there is only a File object support.
>>
>> If you agree that such feature is acceptable, than I think that either:
>> 1. The FileDataBodyPart should be adjusted to support byte[] or,
>> 2. Another subclass of FormDataBodyPart should be created which will
>> support the byte[].
>>
>> Personally, I'd prefer the 2. option.
>>
>> What do you think about that?
>> Are you open for contributions?
>>
>> The idea for this feature was born in Arquillian project [2].
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Pedro
>>
>> [1] -
>> http://jersey.java.net/nonav/apidocs/1.9.1/contribs/jersey-multipart/co
>> m/sun/jersey/multipart/file/FileDataBodyPart.html
>> [2] - https://issues.jboss.org/browse/ARQ-569
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>