commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Jochen Wiedmann" <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com>
Subject RFC: Fileupload 1.3 or 2.0?
Date Tue, 03 Jul 2007 19:27:30 GMT
Hi,

when applying the fixes for IO-99 to commons-fileupload, I was
originally under the impression, that this would be easily possible
without any or at least with fully upward compliant API changes.

Until I detected that for reasons, which absolutely escape me, someone
made FileItem to implement the Serializable interface.

I can only guess, that someone had the idea to put a FileItem into the
HttpSession. But resource tracking within a persistent HttpSession,
seems to me to be clearly outside the scope of commons-fileupload. At
least, this doesn't fit into the default implementation, which assumes
temporary files, for good reasons.

At first, I have attempted to fix the problem by making the
FileCleaner serializable, but Rahul has rightly pointed out, that I am
doing nonsense. See

http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--io--fileupload--svn-commit%3A-r518770---in--jakarta-commons-proper-io-trunk-src%3A-java-org-apache-commons-io-FileCleaningTracker.java-test-org-apache-commons-io-FileUtilsCleanDirectoryTestCase.java-p9520876.html

for details. I have reverted the changes in commons-io and rethought
my approach.

The longer I thought about it, the more I came to the conclusion, that
the only clean solution is to accept API changes. In particular, let
FileItem no longer implement the Serializable interface. While we are
at it, we could as well dissolve the the FileItemFactory and the
multipart parser. Remove the whole bunch of deprecated methods.

In other words, I propose to resolve FILEUPLOAD-120.or FILEUPLOAD-125
finally by dropping binary compatibilty and declaring the next version
as commons-fileupload 2.0, not 1.3.

I know that others (in particular Martin) had bigger plans for 2.0:
Reimplement the thing based on httpcomponents, or commons-codec, or
whatever, and stuff like that. Unfortunately I see noone who'd be
ready to do that. In particular, not me.

Thoughts?

Jochen


-- 
"Besides, manipulating elections is under penalty of law, resulting in
a preventative effect against manipulating elections.

The german government justifying the use of electronic voting machines
and obviously  believing that we don't need a police, because all
illegal actions are forbidden.

http://dip.bundestag.de/btd/16/051/1605194.pdf

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message