> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Oleg Kobchenko > Please make sure that the current JHP code does not have > anything missing from functionality that was in your code > (except temp files). I need to spend a bit more time studying exactly what is happening in your code, but so far except for the filename storage decision discussed below, I haven't noticed anything.
> (One design decision: if method is not multipart, the file > name is passed as the parameter value. In current JHP, file > name is in qparamFile and content is in qparam. Should this > be swapped for consistency? > However, qparamFile is a good way to test if it's a file, > whereas content may theoretically be zero--one rationale for > keeping name in qparamFile.) Yes that's a tough one. To enable consistent handling between the methods, I think you'd have to add another boolean vector to signal if it's a file, and I'm not sure it's worth it. On the other hand adding the extra noun would make it more immediately obvious to users on how to test for file existence? The other thing I'm debating, is whether consolidating keys with the same name into a vector should be left to the user if desired or be handled by JHP. This would add an additional level of boxing to CGIVALS, but given the array nature of J, I'm leaning towards JHP handling it. This would mean for instance that a set of checkboxes or radio buttons would be automatically become one entry in CGIKEYS and a vector in CGIVALS. Something along the lines of: CGIKEYS=: ~.CGIKEYS CGIVALS=: CGIKEYS </. CGIVALS > The very lastest JHP update contains a fix for stdin_w32 and > an upload limit of 1Mb in the examples script. I discovered a > funny thing in IIS stdin for CGI: it requires reading the > stdin through, even if you decide it is exceeding the limit > and you show error, or it will drop connection. > Currently it is not addressed, I was not able to confirm by > googling how to address that, except reading it through > without storing (copy null, basically). > No such problem for Unix, but it was only tested with 2-3Mb. > I wasn't clear from above whether the current implementation of JHP uses the copy null idea if stdin exceeds the limit or whether there is no handling of it at all currently. I'm picking the latter but can you confirm? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
