[pLog-svn] resserver usage
Oscar Renalias
oscar at renalias.net
Thu Sep 28 18:43:52 GMT 2006
Yes, wizard.php would take care of moving files to their new
location. I don't suppose it's a difficult script, althought it will
take a while to execute in bigger sites.
When I said hidden resources, I meant hidden albums. There is a
checkbox when creating an album that makes it not appear in the list
of albums in the public side of the blog. I don't see how this could
be possible, although I am not sure how many people are really using
this feature.
Regarding URLs and subdomains, I know things like http://
subdomain.server.com/gallery/1/general/test.jpg will work but
considering we're using subdomains, would it be possible to have
something like http://subdomain.server.com/gallery/general/test.jpg?
(without the blog id)
On 28 Sep 2006, at 21:23, Jon Daley wrote:
> 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...
> _______________________________________________
> pLog-svn mailing list
> pLog-svn at devel.lifetype.net
> http://devel.lifetype.net/mailman/listinfo/plog-svn
>
More information about the pLog-svn
mailing list