I agree with Sylvain, don't see a point in splitting it up (definitely
not for performance reasons only).
Kalle
________________________________
From: Sylvain Vieujot [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, March 14, 2005 6:35 PM
To: MyFaces Development
Subject: Re: Split (or kill) Extensions filter
Yes, I don't think we should split off MultipartFilter from
ExtensionsFilter, for several reasons :
1) It will require to set 2 filters, which goes against the main
purpose of this filter, that is to keep things simple.
2) A nice feature with the ExtensionsFilter would be to ensure
that the form has enctype="multipart/form-data" when it contains a file
upload component.
If the reason you want to do this is performance, did you do any
benchmark ?
I would guess that the ExtensionsFilter doesn't impact
performance a lot.
I even think it would rather improve the client overall response
time as it includes the needed resources only when needed, and it (now)
provides better client side caching.
For example, if you have a page with a tab panel, and many
components on each tab, as you switch tab, it will only include the
needed resources.
The only drawback of the filter is the in-memory buffering of
the complete response, which is indeed a penalty for pages with no
complex setup.
If you really need a MultipartFilter only, I rather recommend
adding a disableExtensions attribute to this filter, the same way it's
done for the uploadMaxFileSize attribute.
It keeps things simple while achieving the goal you have. Plus,
it's very easy to do.
You could also leave the ExtensionsFilter as it is, and write a
stripped down version, handling only the Multipart stuffs.
Anyway, I strongly think you should not oblige the user that
still want to use the ExtensionsFilter to setup 2 filters (one for
extensions and one for multipart).
If you want to include the disableExtensions filter parameter,
just tell me, I can do that quickly.
Thanks,
Sylvain.
On Tue, 2005-03-15 at 02:50 +0100, Oliver Rossmueller wrote:
So from my POV there is consensus to split off
MultipartFilter from
ExtensionsFilter as proposed but to keep
ExtensionsFilter and give users
the choice to use it. If I missed an argument against
the split please
let me know. Otherwise I'll do the split until the end
of the week.
Oliver
Oliver Rossmueller wrote:
> I'm no longer willing to pay the runtime penalty
ExtensionFilter adds
> to an application (javascript files loaded over and
over again,
> in-memory buffering of the complete response) just
for the benefit of
> 10 minutes of saved developer time for adding the
javascript stuff to
> the header of any jsf page.
>
> So my plan is to split up ExtensionFilter to
MultipartFilter (in the
> form it was before ExtensionFilter was introduced) and
ExtensionFilter
> (just dealing with extensions stuff). Actually I would
like to drop
> the extensions stuff completely as I don't see any
benefit in having
> this kind of filter at hand. We could create a
myfaces-resources.jar
> instead where we place all the image and javascript
resources so it's
> easy to add all the resources to your war file by just
adding a
> zipfileset tag to your build file.
>
> Comments? Objections?
>
> Oliver
>
