So I'm more of a lurker on this mail group, but your request is intriguing.
Why can't you just set the filename to something other than null? It seems to me that a simple "X-SOAP-Attachment" would suffice without making library changes or needing to write a patch? Sent with Spark On May 2, 2025, 9:04 AM -0700, Robert Turner <[email protected]>, wrote: > I've been trying to find a solution to easily allow receiving attachments > in a multipart payload (such as "multipart/related") [1]. The FileUpload > library comes very close to allowing us to at least receive such parts. > > However, with the current implementation (2.0.0-M2) > of FileItemInputIteratorImpl [3], any parts without a form field name > ("name" value in the Content-Disposition header) or a file name ("filename" > value in the Content-Disposition header) are discarded. A related, but not > identical, work item is in the project jira, as FILEUPLOAD-281 [2], but > this is quite an old item (from 2017) and the proposed patch is likely no > longer suitable. > > I have been looking at the code, and I'm wondering if there is an easy way > that at least partial support for these "unsupported" multipart payloads > could be added without much effort. At a fairly quick glance, it looks like > one could eliminate or bypass the `if (fileName == null)` check in > FileItemInputIteratorImpl::findNextItem [3], and it "would work" -- > however, any code that relied on having a file name might fail -- but I > don't see anything in the library that would fail, it would be client code > most likely that would fail (a breaking change). > > As such, a change like that would likely want to be controlled by some > "flag" or similar when constructing the "FileUpload" object (derived from > AbstractFileUpload [4]), or by adding a method to control that flag to > AbstractFileUpload [4]. > > I am happy to implement a solution / patch and post a PR / change, but > given that I am not intimately familiar with the project, the proposals / > suggestions above may not be in line with how the project wants to evolve, > etc. If adding such functionality (or similar) is not desirable, I will > likely resort to patching it in some way to at least bypass this > limitation, or trying to find another solution / library. > > As such, feedback on this would be greatly appreciated before I invest > additional effort going in the "wrong direction". > > Thanks for any feedback anyone can provide, > > Robert > > > [1] Motivation for this comes from trying to support a "SOAP with > attachments" style interface (not popular, but unfortunately used by a > product we need to integrate with, and is unchangeable by us). The > related W3 document for this is "SOAP-attachments" ( > https://www.w3.org/TR/SOAP-attachments), which uses the Content-ID part > header to identify parts instead of form fields or filenames. > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/FILEUPLOAD-281 > > [3] > https://github.com/apache/commons-fileupload/blob/master/commons-fileupload2-core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/fileupload2/core/FileItemInputIteratorImpl.java#L127 > > [4] > https://github.com/apache/commons-fileupload/blob/master/commons-fileupload2-core/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/fileupload2/core/AbstractFileUpload.java
