Re: Consider reverting multipart parsing change

[Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>]

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Mark Goris <mark.goris@gmail.com> wrote:
> It's been a long time since I created the initial ticket, so I've lost
> some of the context (especially in the subsequent discussion that led
> to this change that you've suggested to revert).  It seemed best to me
> that tempfiles only be used in the case of having a filename attribute
> be present, regardless of content-type.  Your suggestion seems to
> focus on the specific type of content-type driving logic regarding
> whether or not a part is treated as a file upload.  I guess my
> question is, why not just use the filename attribute to drive this
> logic?  I don't know of a downside to this approach (meaning, I'm not
> exactly clear on the intention for the change that prompted ticket 79
> in the first place).

Checking for filename works for file uploads from web browsers. All
other MIME parts are flattened to a "normal" form parameter even it it
was neither a form param or a file upload. For example, see the
multipart/mixed regression on #79.

The fix for #79 restricts what may be considered a file upload rather
than broadening what may be considered a normal form param to include
MIME parts with a text/plain Content-Type.

Rather than treating all MIME parts as form params and making a
special case for file uploads by looking for a filename, we should be
doing the opposite, making a special case to identify form param MIME
parts by their missing filename and missing or text/plain
Content-Type.

jeremy