Hello Pedro,
The diff is missing the following files:
com.sun.jersey.multipart.file.FileBasedOperationsHelper
com.sun.jersey.multipart.file.FileDataBodyPartResource
Have you forgotten to add them?
Otherwise from what i can see, the added tests look fine.
I have just re-opened
http://java.net/jira/browse/JERSEY-777
so that you could attach the diff there.
Thanks,
~Jakub
On 3.11.2011 18:38, Palli wrote:
> Hello Jakub,
>
> It's just a small reminder - could you please take a look at the test
> code I provided in the last post?
>
> I would like to close my workspace, and don't know if the artifacts
> are acceptable :-)
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Pedro
>
> On 10/13/2011 06:22 PM, Jakub Podlesak wrote:
>> 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
>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>> <mailto: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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>