Re: Revisiting Images in Database
Re: Revisiting Images in Database
- Subject: Re: Revisiting Images in Database
- From: Jonathan Rochkind <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 01 Apr 2003 11:17:38 -0600
At 03:54 PM 4/1/2003 +0100, Jonathan Fleming wrote:
Right,
This whole WOImage thing is starting to weigh down on me...
First after creating an app with images ported to the database, I find out
it's not a good idea to have then there and that they should be streamed
to the webserver instead... Fine, a few days later I completed the conversion
Secondly, now that I think I'm ready to deploy my app, I'm learning from
this post that there are issues with leakage of memory and caching
problems using WOImage element not to mention the resource manager...
where the hell does it end? What have I got to do to serve my images properly?
Don't get too alarmed just yet---the problems with WOImage are part of the
REASON it's best not to store your images in the db. By storing your
images in the file system (either in the web server document root or not)
you've also avoided these problems we've been talking about related to
WOImage.
So you may be worrying more than you need to here. It's really okay. If
security isn't an issue, and it's okay that any user can access any image
through the web server (if they know the URL), then put your images
somewhere under the web server document root, and it's really quite easy.
If not, then put your images in the file system, and your app delivers them
by returning a WOResponse with the image data in it. The WOResponse's new
streaming API, combined with a FileOutputStream would seem the best way to
do this. It shouldn't be too hard (providing there are no bugs in the new
WOResponse streaming API--cross your fingers. I haven't tried it yet).
When I first got started with WebObjects Apple told me that I would not
need to know or use much code...
Yeah, I don't think that's true. For all but the most trivial applications,
WO really has quite a learning curve. Many of us like WO quite a
bit---but it's not becuase someone who isn't a very experienced developer
can become an expert at WO in a matter of seconds. It ain't true.
something like that, and they're still saying that today with selling
WebObjects 5.2... the buggiest application of them all it seems...
I think WO 5.2 is generally less buggy than any previous version of WO.
Doesn't mean it's bug free, of course.
I digress slightly, I brought WebObjects 5.2 a month or so ago but I
haven't even installed it becasue of all the posts to do with problems
with that version... all that money is just sitting in a box waiting for a
comprehensive fix... not good.
I think 5.2 is a reasonably stable version. Especially now that the patch 1
has been released. I wouldn't wait.
All I want to know is how to get an image to serve correctly using this
elegant, supposidly simple application called WebObjects.
Hopefully my above comments helped you out a bit, but yeah, WO ain't simple.
I'm getting really angry at this because I was a simple web designer who
wanted to do something a little more dynamic with his websites, and in
looking at the alternatives including Coldfusion, Lasso, ASP and all the
rest of them I stumbled across WebObjects when they first released it to the
WO may or may not be the best solution for you, I can't really say.
Now don't get me wrong here, I'm so glad I found WebObjects and it would
take an army to prize me away from it because it is in actual fact a
fantasic application...
Wait, so you DO like it.
But yeah, the bugs can be awfully frustrating.
--Jonathan
_______________________________________________
webobjects-dev mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/webobjects-dev
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.