Mailing-List: contact jspwiki-user-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: jspwiki-user@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com
 designates 193.64.5.122 as permitted sender)
In-Reply-To: <38405785.20080627183252@holeczek.de>
References: <1214432864.6616.26.camel@vici>
 <55A21CC2-33F1-432D-B09F-9CB0A2B9735D@ecyrd.com>
 <38405785.20080627183252@holeczek.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753.1)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <658F17B0-00E2-4482-9157-6FC8526BF9F9@ecyrd.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Janne Jalkanen <Janne.Jalkanen@ecyrd.com>
Subject: Re: attachment client leads to provider failure
Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 20:46:57 +0300
To: jspwiki-user@incubator.apache.org


Unfortunately the DAV interface currently is read-only.  It's pretty =20
much an experimental feature...

/Janne

On 27 Jun 2008, at 19:32, Florian Holeczek wrote:

> I once read that there's a WebDAV Interface in JSPWiki, but I haven't
> found any details on it.
> Wouldn't this be the preffered approach when uploading files?
>
> Regards,
>  Florian
>
> Urspr=FCngliche Nachricht vom 26.06.2008 um 21:18:
>>> I am trying to write a http client that will login, attach, and
>>> logout.
>>> I am having problems with the attach. It leads to a "Upload failed
>>> because the provider failed: Parent page does not exist (attachment:
>>> (unknown)). AFAIK, the client duplicates what my browser is doing.
>>> I am
>>> giving the same parent page as the "page" parameter, but no dice. I
>>> assume that I can ignore the progressbar ajax part.
>
>> Hi!
>
>> Just as a warning, we don't guarantee that the process will stay the
>> same between revisions.  In fact, we're actively changing it even
>> between minor versions to throw off bots.
>
>> However, what you're probably not doing correct is that you are
>> sending the form fields in the incorrect order.  Please check
>> carefully that the order that you're sending the fields is exactly
>> the same as with the regular process.
>
>> /Janne