[hunchentoot-devel] minor modification to HANDLE-STATIC-FILE
I thought, that it would be useful (especially in dynamic REST-style handlers, which create the files on the fly) to handle files with the appropriate header set, i.e.: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="..." the diff is attached
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:32:14 +0200, Vsevolod <vseloved@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought, that it would be useful (especially in dynamic REST-style handlers, which create the files on the fly) to handle files with the appropriate header set, i.e.: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="..."
I don't think it is a good idea to do this unconditionally.
Than, maybe add optional parameter to HANDLE-STATIC-FILE? (defun handle-static-file (path &optional content-type filename) "A function which acts like a Hunchentoot handler for the file denoted by PATH. Send a content type header corresponding to CONTENT-TYPE or \(if that is NIL) tries to determine the content type via the file's suffix. If FILENAME isn't NIL, send Content-disposition header with filename set to either FILENAME (if it's a string) or real FILE-NAMESTRING" <...> (setf (header-out "Last-Modified") (rfc-1123-date time) (content-length) (file-length file)) (when filename (setf (header-out "Content-disposition") (format nil "attachement; filename=\"~a\"" (if (stringp filename) filename (file-namestring path)))) <...> On 12/5/08, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 02:32:14 +0200, Vsevolod <vseloved@gmail.com> wrote:
I thought, that it would be useful (especially in dynamic REST-style handlers, which create the files on the fly) to handle files with the appropriate header set, i.e.: Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="..."
I don't think it is a good idea to do this unconditionally.
_______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
-- vsevolod
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:38:10 +0200, Vsevolod <vseloved@gmail.com> wrote:
Than, maybe add optional parameter to HANDLE-STATIC-FILE?
Yeah, maybe something like that. But in that case I'd use keywords and not optional arguments. I'm not sure if that's really so useful, though. What do others think?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 13:04, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:38:10 +0200, Vsevolod <vseloved@gmail.com> wrote:
Than, maybe add optional parameter to HANDLE-STATIC-FILE?
Yeah, maybe something like that. But in that case I'd use keywords and not optional arguments.
I'm not sure if that's really so useful, though. What do others think?
I think that the content disposition is application specific. I'd not put it into handle-static-file. Applications can always use their own handler function to set up appropriate headers, then call handle-static-file to do the gruntwork. -Hans
That is a valid claim, I agree. I overlooked this possibility of modifying the headers before calling HANDLE-STATIC-FILE. Thanks On 12/5/08, Hans Hübner <hans@huebner.org> wrote:
On Fri, Dec 5, 2008 at 13:04, Edi Weitz <edi@agharta.de> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 12:38:10 +0200, Vsevolod <vseloved@gmail.com> wrote:
Than, maybe add optional parameter to HANDLE-STATIC-FILE?
Yeah, maybe something like that. But in that case I'd use keywords and not optional arguments.
I'm not sure if that's really so useful, though. What do others think?
I think that the content disposition is application specific. I'd not put it into handle-static-file. Applications can always use their own handler function to set up appropriate headers, then call handle-static-file to do the gruntwork.
-Hans
_______________________________________________ tbnl-devel site list tbnl-devel@common-lisp.net http://common-lisp.net/mailman/listinfo/tbnl-devel
-- vsevolod
participants (3)
-
Edi Weitz -
Hans Hübner -
Vsevolod