Re: [naviserver-devel] Re: [naviserver-commits] naviserver/nsd tclobjv.c,1.7,1.8 tclresp.c,1.4,1.5

[Stephen D. <sd...@gm...>]

I think it's fine to also alow ns_return to handle binary data, I'm
just wondering if it should be with the extra command ns_returnbinary?

It looks like you can simple check the type of the Tcl object passed
to ns_return for "bytearray".  That's the only case it makes sense to
write the bytes directly.

The advantage over ns_returnbinary is that in many cases the uses
doesn't have to know what's going on.  e.g. a command which creates a
png graph would be returned as a byte array, and if passed to
ns_return everything should just work.



On 6/9/05, Vlad Seryakov <vl...@cr...> wrote:
> ns_respond now supports binary so ns_returnbinary is redundant, but i
> think Tcl_GetByteArray works with string and byte array, just
> Tcl_GetByteArray does not do eny encoding/converting to/From utf.
>=20
> Stephen Deasey wrote:
> > Before you cvs commit, you must make test.  Two tests are broken...
> > We're strugeling for tests, but tclresp.c is one file that does have a
> > reasonably complete set.  Can you add some for the new commands?
> > Also, the cut 'n paste comment for Ns_ObjvByteArray is no longer
> > correct.
> >
> > I was wondering, is ns_returnbinary necessary?  What if ns_return was
> > modified to check the type of it's data arg, and if it's byterray,
> > send using Ns_ConnReturnData.  Would this work?