not only hybrid :) native may want to upload data too :-)
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 9:59 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com>wrote:
Nice write up !
Beside the controller side, and talking about consistency, did our Pipes
support mutlipart ? A common use case would be a hybrid app that wants to
upload a picture from the camera, would be really nice if we can do this
with a Pipe.
On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 7:29 AM, Daniel Bevenius <
daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I'll take a look at what the mapping might look like and post back with a
> suggestion.
>
> >same here, not sure if still (good) maintained, since it (multipart) is
> now part of the servlet spec;
> Good point here Matthias. Let me take another look into this and see if
> we can somehow use the MultipartConfig from the spec. This would have been
> our first choice, but as far as I know this is not supported from a filter
> but only when used on a Servlet. I'll see if there is another way to do
> this.
>
> Thanks for the feedback!
>
>
>
> On 15 April 2013 17:50, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 9:19 PM, Summers Pittman
<supittma(a)redhat.com>wrote:
>>
>>> On Monday, April 15, 2013 10:00:14 AM, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
>>> > Hi!
>>> >
>>> > I've created a gist to discuss possible ways to implement
>>> > multipart-support in AeroGear Controller:
>>> >
https://gist.github.com/danbev/fec1fe498cabdf0aef6a
>>> >
>>> > Any suggestion/comments are welcome.
>>> >
>>> > /Dan
>>> I don't mind relying on commons-fileupload.
>>>
>>
>> same here, not sure if still (good) maintained, since it (multipart) is
>> now part of the servlet spec;
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> It would be nice (but more work) if we could marshall objects with
>>> multipart like we can with JSON. For fields which aren't files that is
>>> easy. For fields which are files we would have some behavior to define.
>>>
>>> I'm all for making easy bindings for common types (maybe byte[], File,
>>> InputStream, BufferedImage) and having an easy way to inject custom
>>> processing (perhaps with annotations).
>>>
>>
>> that would be nice, to have an easy mapping
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>> >
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>
>> blog:
http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>> sessions:
http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>> twitter:
http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev