Re: Adding #size to rack.input

[Brian Lopez <seniorlopez@gmail.com>]

What does this mean for streaming requests?

-brianmario

On Feb 22, 2010, at 2:52 PM, Hongli Lai wrote:

> On Feb 22, 11:46 pm, Ryan Tomayko <r...@tomayko.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 3:14 AM, Hongli Lai wrote:
>>> Hi Ryan.
>> 
>>> Rack.input is already required to be rewindable, meaning the input has
>>> to be backed by a file or a StringIO at some point. It should be
>>> trivial for pretty much all Rack web servers to implement #size. Do
>>> you have any objections against including #size in the spec?
>> 
>>> With kind regards,
>>> Hongli Lai
>> 
>> That's a good point. Any objections to adding #size to the SPEC and
>> Rack::RewindableInput? I'd be happy to put the patches together.
> 
> It should be noted that this request came from Chad Fowler who
> encountered the problem in the Gemcutter website. The existing code
> already assumes that #size is available, which is the case for e.g.
> Thin which exposes a StringIO or Tempfile as rack.input.