I need to invoke a remote REST interface handler and submit it a file in request body. Please note that I don't control the server. I cannot change the request to be multipart, the client has to work in accordance to external specification.
So far I managed to make it work like this (omitting headers etc. for brevity):
byte[] data = readFileCompletely ();
client.target (url).request ().post (Entity.entity (data, "file/mimetype"));
This works, but will fail with huge files that don't fit into memory. And since I have no restriction on filesize, this is a concern.
Question: is it somehow possible to use streams or something similar to avoid reading the whole file into memory?
If possible, I'd prefer to avoid implementation-specific extensions. If not, a solution that works with RESTEasy (on Wildfly) is also acceptable.
ReastEasy as well as Jersey support InputStream out of the box so simply use Entity.entity(inputStream, "application/octet-stream"); or whatever Content-Type header you want to set.
You can go low-level and construct the HTTP request using a library such as the plain java.net.URLConnection.
I have not tried it myself but there is example code which reads a local file and writes it to the request stream without loading it into a byte array.
Upload files from Java client to a HTTP server
Of course this solution requires more manual coding but it should work (unless java.net.URLConnection loads the whole file into memory)
Related
I'm building a microservice which one of it's API's expects a file and some parameters which the API will process and return a response for.
I've searched and found some references, mostly pointing towards form-data (multipart), however they mostly refer to client to service and not service to service like in my case.
I'll be happy to know what is the best practice for this case for both the client (a service actually) and me.
I would also suggest to perform a POST request (multipart) to a service endpoint that can process/accept a byte stream wrapped into the provided HTML body(s). A PUT request may also work in some cases.
Your main concerns will consist in binding enough metadata to the request so that the remote service can correctly handle it. This include in particular the following headers:
Content-Type: to provide the MIME type of the data being transferred and enable its proper processing.
Content-Disposition: to provide additional information about the body part such as the file name.
I personally believe that a single request is enough (in contrast to #Evert suggestion) as it will result in less overhead overall and will keep things simple (and RESTful) by avoiding any linking (or state) between successive requests.
I would not wrap data in form-data, because it just adds to the total body size. You can just put the entire raw file in the body of a PUT or POST request.
If you also need to send meta-data, I would suggest 2 requests. If you absolutely can't do 2 requests, form-data might still be the best option and it does work server-to-server.
I have an API endpoint for uploading large files, streaming then directly to DB. I use ASP.NET Core's IFormFeature to do this, calling IFormFile.OpenReadStream() to get a Stream that I pass to SqlClient for streaming.
I want to enforce a a maximum file size to avoid abuse. I know IFormFile has a Length property, but I assume that is based on Content-Length or similar and can not be trusted (please correct me if I'm wrong, but AFAIK the only way to be 100% sure about the file size is to actually read the data; the client could send an incorrect Content-Length.)
I must therefore ensure that when the stream is read, it does not read more than what is specified in IFormFile.Length (ideally it should throw if it encounters additional bytes). I have not found a way to do this. Is this possible, or is there perhaps a better way to ensure the server doesn't read enormous amounts of data from clients sending incorrect Content-Length headers?
(It should go without saying that this must not entail reading the entire file into memory.)
I'm trying to implement the file storage ыукмшсу with basic S3 compatible API using akka-http.
I use s3 java sdk to test my service API and got the problem with the putObject(...) method. I can't consume file properly on my akka-http backend. I wrote simple route for the test purposes:
def putFile(bucket: String, file: String) = put{
extractRequestEntity{ ent =>
val finishedWriting = ent.dataBytes.runWith(FileIO.toPath(new File(s"/tmp/${file}").toPath))
onComplete(finishedWriting) { ioResult =>
complete("Finished writing data: " + ioResult)
}
}
}
It saves file, but file is always corrupted. Looking inside the file I found the lines like these:
"20000;chunk-signature=73c6b865ab5899b5b7596b8c11113a8df439489da42ddb5b8d0c861a0472f8a1".
When I try to PUT file with any other rest client it works as fine as expected.
I know S3 uses "Expect: 100-continue" header and may it he causes problems.
I really can't figure out how to deal with that. Any help appreciated.
This isn't exactly corrupted. Your service is not accounting for one of the four¹ ways S3 supports uploads to be sent on the wire, using Content-Encoding: aws-chunked and x-amz-content-sha256: STREAMING-AWS4-HMAC-SHA256-PAYLOAD.
It's a non-standards-based mechanism for streaming an object, and includes chunks that look exactly like this:
string(IntHexBase(chunk-size)) + ";chunk-signature=" + signature + \r\n + chunk-data + \r\n
...where IntHexBase() is pseudocode for a function that formats an integer as a hexadecimal number as a string.
This chunk-based algorithm is similar to, but not compatible with, Transfer-Encoding: chunked, because it embeds checksums in the stream.
Why did they make up a new HTTP transfer encoding? It's potentially useful on the client side because it eliminates the need to either "read your payload twice or buffer [the entire object payload] in memory [concurrently]" -- one or the other of which is otherwise necessary if you are going to calculate the x-amz-content-sha256 hash before the upload begins, as you otherwise must, since it's required for integrity checking.
I am not overly familiar with the internals of the Java SDK, but this type of upload might be triggered by using .withInputStream() or it might be standard behavor for files too, or for files over a certain size.
Your minimum workaround would be to throw an HTTP error if you see x-amz-content-sha256: STREAMING-AWS4-HMAC-SHA256-PAYLOAD in the request headers since you appear not to have implemented this in your API, but this would most likely only serve to prevent storing objects uploaded by this method. The fact that this isn't already what happens automatically suggests that you haven't implemented x-amz-content-sha256 handling at all, so you are not doing the server-side payload integrity checks that you need to be doing.
For full compatibility, you'll need to implement the algorithm supported by S3 and assumed to be available by the SDKs, unless the SDKs specifically support a mechanism for disabling this algorithm -- which seems unlikely, since it serves a useful purpose, particularly (it appears) for streams whose length is known but that aren't seekable.
¹ one of four -- the other three are a standard PUT, a web-based html form POST, and the multipart API that is recommended for large files and mandatory for files larger than 5 GB.
I want to build a wcf web service so that the client and the server would be able to transfer files between each other. Do you know how I can achieve this? I think I should turn it into a byte array but I have no idea how to do that. The file is also quite big so I must turn on streamed response.
It sounds like you're on the right track. A quick search of the interwebz yielded this link: http://www.codeproject.com/Articles/166763/WCF-Streaming-Upload-Download-Files-Over-HTTP
Your question indicates that you want to send a file from a java client to a WCFd endpoint, but the contents of your question indicate that this should be a bidirectional capability. If this is the case, then you'll need to implement a service endpoint on your client as well. As far as that is concerned, I cannot be of much help, but there are resources out there like this SO question: In-process SOAP service server for Java
As far as practical implementation, I would think that using these two links you should be able to produce some code for your server and client.
As far as reading all bytes of a file, in C# you can use: File.ReadAllBytes It should work as in the following code:
//Read The contents of the file indicated
string fileName = "/path/to/some/file";
//store the binary in a byte array
byte[] buffer = File.ReadAllBytes(fileName);
//do something with those bytes!
Be sure to use the search function in the future:
I have an application to upload files to a server. I am using nettcpbinding and wshttpbinding. When the files is larger than 200 MB, I get a memory exception. Working around this, I have seen people recommend streaming, and of course it works with nettcpbinding for large files (>1GB), but when using wshttpbinding, what would be the approach?? Should I change to basichttpbinding?? what?? Thanks.
I suggest you expose another end point just to upload such large size data. This can have a binding that supports streaming. In our previous project we needed to do file uploads to server as part of business process. We ended up creating 2 endpoints one just dedicated to file upload, and another for all other business functionality.
The streaming data service can be a generic service to stream any data to the server and maybe return a token for identifying the data on server.For subsequent requests this token can be passed along to manipulate the data on server.
If you don't want to (or cannot because of legit reasons) change the binding nor use streaming, what you can do is have some method with a signature along the lines of the following:
void UploadFile(string fileName, long offset, byte[] data)
Instead of sending the whole file, you send little packets, and tell where the data should be placed. You can add more data, of course, like the whole filesize, CRC of the file to know if the transfer was successful, etc.