Re: Advice on dynamic graphics with WO
Re: Advice on dynamic graphics with WO
- Subject: Re: Advice on dynamic graphics with WO
- From: Michael Halliday <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:43:15 -0500
- Resent-date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:48:40 -0500
- Resent-date: Thu, 01 Jan 2004 00:51:37 -0500
- Resent-from: Michael Halliday <email@hidden>
- Resent-message-id: <email@hidden>
- Resent-to: WebObjects Dev <email@hidden>
I haven't had any problems storing images in our database (OpenBase).
We have developed many "community" based sites with photo albums as
well as an online dating service, both use the same methods that Robert
talked about in his message.
I have to say that we have had no performance issues, and to me this is
the most elegant, scalable solution for several reasons:
(1) You have all of the database clustering options available to you
for data redundancy & data backup.
(2) If your site was to grow substantially in size and you required
multiple HTTP Servers (along with your multiple application servers),
if your images were served by apache from the local filesystem you
would run into issues with having to somehow replicate your image
directories across the multiple Apache servers. I'm not saying this
couldn't be done...it would just require the proper planning. Using
the database for an image store would solve all of these issues.
(3) Using the database method, WebObjects would cache your images so
you wouldn't actually have to go to the database each time.
(4) If you need to "associate" images with other objects I'd hate my
images to be stored in the file system. You would eventually most
likely run into broken links etc...this would get rather messy. Plus
if you need to control access to images (I.E. Only logged on users can
view product images) you would need to rely on filesystem/apache
security which adds yet another layer of complexity to your
application.
Again, I know many people will probably disagree with this approach.
But, it is working perfectly for us and for dynamic images (or images
that the user can change/upload) I think it's the most effective
approach. That being said, we do use apache to serve up our static
images.
I'd be interested to hear from others and there experiences with
storing images in databases. You hear a lot of people saying "Don't do
it, it won't perform well."...but have these people actually tried it?
Or have they just been told not to do it. I have been very interested
in this topic for a while now and I have done extensive searching but
never come up with any "correct" answer. I think it also depends on
which database you use and how exactly the database itself stores
images. I know that some are much better than others and personally
this is where you'd most likely run into the performance hit (if any).
Michael.
PS -- Happy New Year!!!
PPS -- I'm working on New Years Eve...how sad is that?!
On 31-Dec-03, at 8:25 PM, Michael Engelhart wrote:
On Dec 31, 2003, at 7:46 PM, Robert Walker wrote:
It's probable that many on this list will disagree with me on this
issue, but I have had good success, for my purposes, with this design
pattern.
I'm curious if this is in a very high traffic site or not? I can't
imagine that pulling image data out of database for every page view is
going to scale. That's my underlying reason for saying it's a bad
idea. But then again I could be wrong. :-)
I'm also curious as to whether or not a caching proxy server (say
Squid for example) can cache a copy of an image that isn't file based?
This may or may not be an issue though depending on the application.
Mike
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.