|
|
Posted by howa on 09/10/07 16:25
>> "readfile" has a knack for ending the file streaming
early on large files
not really understand your point....
i think beside memory limiation, a single call to readfile should be
more efficient.
On 9 10 , 11 04 , Good Man <he...@letsgo.com> wrote:
> howa <howac...@gmail.com> wrote in news:1189433262.872289.319540@
> 19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:
>
> > Target: To fetch a file using PHP and send to user
>
> > Method 1:
>
> > echo file_get_contents( $file_path );
>
> > Method 2:
>
> > readfile( $file_path );
>
> > Which one is better?
>
> I send files to users via PHP all the time, as my documents are stored
> above the "www" directory. I use a modification of "readfile", found on
> the manual page by chrisputnam at gmail dot com... had to use this
> function because "readfile" has a knack for ending the file streaming
> early on large files:
>
> function readfile_chunked($filename,$retbytes=true) {
> $chunksize = 1*(1024*1024); // how many bytes per chunk
> $buffer = '';
> $cnt =0;
> // $handle = fopen($filename, 'rb');
> $handle = fopen($filename, 'rb');
> if ($handle === false) {
> return false;
> }
> while (!feof($handle)) {
> $buffer = fread($handle, $chunksize);
> echo $buffer;
> ob_flush();
> flush();
> if ($retbytes) {
> $cnt += strlen($buffer);
> }
> }
> $status = fclose($handle);
> if ($retbytes && $status) {
> return $cnt; // return num. bytes delivered like readfile() does.
> }
> return $status;
>
>
>
> }- -
>
> - -
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|