[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-30?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#action_12529244
]
Robert Burrell Donkin commented on MIME4J-30:
---------------------------------------------
Cursor allowed buffering to be managed in the io layer. Pushing buffering into
MimeTokenStream means that the io layer can no longer transparently support
this. ByteArrayFetcher uses a byte array. This means that nio buffered
implementations are going to be forced to double buffer. ByteArrayFetcher also
has a number of methods which would be unnecessary if a bytebuffer were used
instead.
> Transfer-encoding should be transparent
> ---------------------------------------
>
> Key: MIME4J-30
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/MIME4J-30
> Project: Mime4j
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Affects Versions: 0.3
> Reporter: Jochen Wiedmann
> Assignee: Robert Burrell Donkin
> Fix For: 0.4
>
> Attachments: mime4j-transfer-encoding.patch,
> mime4j-transfer-encoding.patch
>
>
> Currently the mime4j user must be aware of the transfer-encoding header.
> a) This is inconvenient. I can think of no reason, why a user should want the
> encoded data stream.
> b) This blocks MIME4J-27 in the following sense: If a user configures a limit
> on the attachments size,
> then this should most possibly limit the decoded attachments size. But
> Mime4j can only track
> the decoded attachments size, if it is itself responsible for decoding.
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
You can reply to this email to add a comment to the issue online.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
