Including Pre-existing Assets (was Re: Basic Question)
Including Pre-existing Assets (was Re: Basic Question)
- Subject: Including Pre-existing Assets (was Re: Basic Question)
- From: Jeffrey Pearson <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 15:23:46 -0800
I learn best running through samples that apply what was said:
Case 1: If I have a static image (ie a company logo) that is shared
across multiple applications, my best bet is to simply refer to an
existing storage location such as a company web site and use the HTML
img tag.
Case 2: If I have a static image (ie an Application Specific Logo), I
can a) store it in a web server location, use an HTML img tag and
refer to it if I want the web server (ie Apache HTTP Server) to serve
it or b) add it to the project in the application server target and
use the WOImage tag if I want the app server (ie Webobjects or
Tomcat) to serve it up (understanding a slight performance penalty is
applied).
Case 3: If I have an image that changes dynamically, add images to
the project as in b above and use the WOImage tag.
Can I use a WOImage tag and refer to a static location(ie http://
www.someserver.com/images/someimage.jpg) and then modify the url(ie
http://www.someserver.com/images/someimage2.jpg) through my code?
On Mar 22, 2006, at 3:10 PM, Chuck Hill wrote:
Hi Paul,
On Mar 22, 2006, at 2:56 PM, Paul Lynch wrote:
On 22 Mar 2006, at 22:45, Mark Morris wrote:
Images and the like can be kept in some static location, such as
{document root}/images/, as is suggested below. However, they
may also be kept in the "Web Server Resources" group within your
project. Either way, the web server will be handling requests
for the image, not the WebObjects application, so performance
isn't really an issue.
This isn't strictly true - Web Server Resources have to take an
extra trip through a WORequestHandler in order to work out where
they live when the page is generated, although the actual serving
of the resource is handled by the web server. So there is some
overhead associated with using Web Server Resources, although it
isn't as much as some people may think. With a heavy load in
mind, I would try to minimise their use; but for most real world
WO apps, I personally don't feel a compelling argument against
their use.
Are you sure about that. Isn't it just another call to
WOResourceManager.urlForResourceNamed and not a trip through a
WORequestHandler? Yes, it is still overhead. Also, IIRC, the app
_does_ serve the image in development mode. That may be confusing
the issue. It is perhaps an argument in favour of not using Web
Server Resources as it creates a difference between development and
deployment.
Chuck
--
Coming in 2006 - an introduction to web applications using
WebObjects and Xcode http://www.global-village.net/wointro
Practical WebObjects - for developers who want to increase their
overall knowledge of WebObjects or who are trying to solve specific
problems. http://www.global-village.net/products/
practical_webobjects
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden