[pLog-svn] resserver usage

[Jon Daley]

 	I would keep resserver for backward compatibility, but all new 
URLs would use the new method - we probably need a "upgrade resources 
thingy" that moves the resources as appropriate to the new locations?  Or 
maybe we leave the old resources alone.

 	What is a "hidden" resource? If indexes aren't allowed on the 
directory, you can't see anything that isn't directly linked to.  Do we 
have a "secret"-type plugin for resources?
 	Subdomain URLs should be okay, because they have to point to the 
same directory as the main directory.

 	I don't really see any down-sides, other than backward 
compatibility.

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006, Oscar Renalias wrote:
> We can also consider the discussion to replace resserver.php with statically 
> served files (the webserver would do all the work) officially open.
>
> The big picture would be:
>
> - Files stored in the gallery/ folder with their "real" names and not those 
> funny-looking names we're using now.
> - Albums would be real folders in disk
> - Links would be like 
> http://www.server.com/gallery/1/myalbum1/myalbum2/file.jpg (pointing to a 
> real file in disk)
> - UI code would't need to change, hopefully, as we've encapsulated all 
> resource code in their own class files (God bless OOP)
>
> On the other hand, we'd lose the following features:
>
> - "Hidden" resources
> - Currently existing URLs would not work, unless we keep resserver.php for 
> compatibility reasons.
> - I am not sure how URLs like the one above would work with subdomains
>
> The performance gain would probably be noticeable, even more if you think 
> that the gallery/ folder could be moved somewhere else and files could be 
> served by a dedicated server (only resources), and no processing of a PHP 
> script would be required.
>
> I am not saying that this going to be done like this but I'd like to know 
> your views...