users@jersey.java.net

[Jersey] Re: Support for byte[] in com.sun.jersey.multipart.file.FileDataBodyPart

From: Palli <pallipp_at_gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2011 16:05:47 +0100

Hi Jakub,

Oh snap, sorry about that! Of course I've forgotten about them. The diff
has been updated and attached to the JIRA.

Cheers!
Pedro

On 11/04/2011 11:23 AM, Jakub Podlesak wrote:
> 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
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>