Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Multipart upload from Publisher<ByteBuf> #2418

Open
Rattenkrieg opened this issue Aug 3, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Multipart upload from Publisher<ByteBuf> #2418

Rattenkrieg opened this issue Aug 3, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
help wanted We need contributions on this type/enhancement A general enhancement

Comments

@Rattenkrieg
Copy link

Rattenkrieg commented Aug 3, 2022

I can't find a way to encode async sequence of ByteBuf into HttpClientForm. There are few methods encoding java.io.HttpClientForm, java.io.File and plain byte arrays, however HttpClientForm lacking something like

HttpClientForm file(String name, Publisher<? extends ByteBuf> partPublisher, @Nullable String contentType)

Are there any fundamental blockers for such api or is it just a lack of demand? In a latter case I could try to code a missing bits if core team is not working on it already.

@Rattenkrieg Rattenkrieg added status/need-triage A new issue that still need to be evaluated as a whole type/enhancement A general enhancement labels Aug 3, 2022
@violetagg
Copy link
Member

violetagg commented Aug 3, 2022

@Rattenkrieg There was no request for this feature as of today. It would be great if you can work on it. Which version do you need this feature?

@violetagg violetagg added help wanted We need contributions on this and removed status/need-triage A new issue that still need to be evaluated as a whole labels Aug 3, 2022
@violetagg violetagg added this to the General Backlog milestone Aug 3, 2022
@Rattenkrieg
Copy link
Author

@violetagg I'm currently on 1.0.21, but it won't be an issue for me to migrate to 2.0.0. However there is pending #2327 which I guess is a blocker for any multipart features in a 2.0.x branch. So probably 1.0.x is a better place to work until #2327 is merged.

@violetagg
Copy link
Member

@violetagg I'm currently on 1.0.21, but it won't be an issue for me to migrate to 2.0.0. However there is pending #2327 which I guess is a blocker for any multipart features in a 2.0.x branch. So probably 1.0.x is a better place to work until #2327 is merged.

Yep that's true, multipart is currently in progress for Reactor Netty 2.0.0

Agree, please base your work on 1.0.x branch.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
help wanted We need contributions on this type/enhancement A general enhancement
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants