Good points. I'll take a look at this.
-Matt
- Original Message -
From: "Heng Sin Low" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, May 20, 2002 9:10 PM
Subject: RE:Re: FW: [Webwork-user] multipart support
> 1. It might be usefull if there
1. It might be usefull if there is support for
uploading to memory too. It can improve performance at
the expense of more memory usage ( usefull when u know
the size is small ).
2. maxSize tends to be action specific, I think a
mechanism that allow the action to override the
maxSize should be use
"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Webwork-user] multipart support
>
>
> > I don't understand why you can't just make the
ServletDispatcher figure
> out
> > if the request is multipart and if so act
acc
; -Matt
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "Patrick Lightbody" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Matt Baldree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Webwork-User"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Webwork-u
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Webwork-user] multipart support
> I don't understand why you can't just make the ServletDispatcher figure
out
> if the request is multipart and if so act accordingly? Why not make the
> entire thing tran
so
that's not the issue, but the more transparent this feature is, the better!
Just my two cents...
-Pat
- Original Message -
From: "Matt Baldree" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Webwork-User" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, May 18, 2002 11:51 AM
Subjec
I added multipart support to WW. I looked at a couple of approaches at
solving this problem and settled in using a filter to wrap the request. I
thought this was the cleanest, less obtrusive solution. You have the ability
to choose between Jason's multipart parse (watch the license) and Pell's by
