robert burrell donkin-2 wrote:
>
> this is the problem with lots of small patches: i don't understand
> where you are taking the design
>
In general, non-committers are expected to split their work up into smaller
patches, because it helps the reviewers.
Apart from that, this patch arises out of my work on the commons-fileupload
rewrite, into which you have complete insight, if you visit
http://people.apache.org/~jochen/commons-fileupload/
The MIME4J-30 patch is, absolutely unrelated to the current discussion. It
concerns the question, whether the MIME4J user should care about
transport-encoding or not. This question comes up regardless of the overall
design.
robert burrell donkin-2 wrote:
>
> it's direct use of byte arrays which worried me. how do you propose to
> handle memory mapped files without double buffering?
>
I have to admit that I do not know about memory mapped files and why they
should be relevant. I'll be reading on that.
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/-Mime4J--Support-For-Non-Streaming-Inputs-tf4490104.html#a12845823
Sent from the James - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
