W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org > February 2009

[closed] Re: multipart/@boundary

From: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:19:18 -0500
To: public-xml-processing-model-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <m2iqnpja21.fsf_-_@nwalsh.com>
Toman_Vojtech@emc.com writes:
> Hmm, interesting point... One possible advantage of having the boundary
> information in the response could be that it makes it possible to
> "re-post" the response data to the server as-is: you just replace the
> c:response wrapper with c:request and pass it to p:http-request, without
> being forced to set the boundary information in c:multipart.

That's what convinced me to leave it on the response. The processor
has to have the information in order to parse the response, so it's no
trouble to stick it in an attribute.

If it wasn't supplied and you wanted to repost the response, you'd
have to make up a new boundary. Unless you went to *a lot* of trouble,
you'd probably just pick something random and hope for the best. But
if the boundary is provided, you know what *will* work (because it
already has).

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com> | Clearness is so eminently one of the
http://nwalsh.com/            | characteristics of truth that often it
                              | even passes for truth itself.-- Joubert

Received on Thursday, 5 February 2009 13:19:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 5 February 2009 13:19:58 GMT