Re: Advice on dynamic graphics with WO
Re: Advice on dynamic graphics with WO
- Subject: Re: Advice on dynamic graphics with WO
- From: Arturo Pérez <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 10:47:58 -0500
My opinion and experience FWIW, having done it both ways. I keep
having this discussion so
I'd thought I'd put it all down in one place.
Database pros:
1. It's really easy.
2. It works well.
3. It's consistent with everything else; i.e. all data comes from the
database.
Database cons:
1. There are some tuning issues around BLOBs if you're using those (or
equivalent).
2. I don't understand people saying "It solves single point of
failure." Didn't you just move
the single point of failure from a file system to the database? Sure,
databases offer replication
but you can achieve the same with a clusterable file system like
Transarc or the Andrew File System (AFS).
3. It "makes no sense." It's just storing a bunch of non-relational
data in a relational database. It feels
unclean :-)
4. If you need to manipulate the data it's much much harder. For
example, if it's text and you want to
fix a typo it's problematic. If it's an image updating EXIF headers
would be a chore. It's much easier
to run a perl script over a directory of files.
Filesystem pros:
1. It scales better.
2. It's easier to manipulate the images if that's necessary.
Particularly offline from serving them.
3. It's cheaper. (Disks are cheaper costwise than databases esp. if
you need a DBA).
Filesystem cons:
1. It's a little harder to manage. And you might still need a database
to keep track of the images.
2. It's harder to build a content management system that can upload
images. WebDAV might address this issue.
Well, my 2 farthings.
----
WO in philadelphia - wanna cheesesteak with that?
Please visit webobjects.meetup.com.
_______________________________________________
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.