After some internal discussion, I would recommend against hacking
RFC2388 - It will most likely be replaced by something which is more
extensible in the future.

For the time being, your easiest solution might be to use the position
counter of the flexi-stream that the upload is being read from.  At
the beginning of the request, you would make this stream accessible to
your status handler (for example by putting it into the session), and
the status handler would use the start and current position to measure
request progress.

Hope this still helps.  Let us know if it works or if you have found
another, better solution.

-Hans

On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 15:21, Andrei Stebakov <lispercat@gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that RFC2388:READ-UNTIL-NEXT-BOUNDARY doesn't know about the
> content-length as hunchentoot package doesn't pass this parameter to the
> rfc2388:parse-mime function. So again it should be changed in two different
> packages.
> When I implemented file upload progress bar, I had to modify the hunchentoot
> and rfc2388 since only hunchentoot knows about content-length and only
> rfc2388 knows how many bytes was read from the stream. Using these two
> parameters we can calculate the percentage  of the data that was uploaded to
> the server.
> I could retrieve the content-length to the client via ajax and do something
> in javascript to disrupt the upload, but I doesn't look like a good solution
> to me.
> So, my question is where and how in hunchentoot I can raise an error so that
> it would get propagated to the handler of the file upload request so that I
> can show it to the user. In the request constructor (defmethod
> initialize-instance ...) the body is wrapped into handler-case so any error
> which occurs in it should be trapped by (error (cond) ...), right? For some
> reason the error that I raise when the content-length is greater than some
> number, this error gets trapped by the lisp debugger, not by (error (cond)
> ...). Anyway, time for me to go back study lisp manuals! :)
>
> Andrew
>
> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 3:14 AM, Hans Hübner <hans@huebner.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Sep 14, 2008 at 00:55, Andrei Stebakov <lispercat@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > I wonder what's the best way to handle the case when a user tries to
>> > upload
>> > a very large file.
>> > Basically we need to stop execution before it gets to the
>> > parse-rfc2388-form-data and report the problem to the user.
>> >[...]
>> > Another thing, it's a dirty hack, what's the better way of doing this?
>>
>> I would fix the problem in RFC2388:READ-UNTIL-NEXT-BOUNDARY.  This
>> function should read the data directly to the stream provided, and it
>> should have a special variable (in the RFC2388 package) that can be
>> set to limit the maximum number of bytes read.
>>
>> -Hans
>> _______________________________________________
>> tbnl-devel site list
>> tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net
>> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> tbnl-devel site list
> tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net
> http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
>
_______________________________________________
tbnl-devel site list
tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net
http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel