|
|
Posted by Rik on 05/15/06 22:58
robert wrote:
>> I wouldn't recommend your method, which reduces the size of the image
>> every time it is displayed, because it seems like a very wasteful
>> use of resources. I would re-size the image to the desired size
>> once, either before or after it's uploaded.
>
> uh hummm...well, you obviously don't benchmark much nor do you
> architect systems. this method is quick and flexible. i'd like to see
> your posit fleshed out with actual implementation details so i could
> set it up and do a side-line comparison test.
Hmmmz. This dynamic method is definately more flexible, but requires more
from the server. It has his advantages, sizes are changed on the spot
without hassle, there only needs to be one image, not several sizes. It
could take a lot of processing though. I'd prefer this method as it is more
easily maintained, however, when stretched for processing power ot memory,
and storagespace a plenty, it's the first thing to become statical.
I also don't really see the point of denying caching. Why not give it a
filename according to size (like 'thumb-h200-w200-'.$imagename), and let the
users cache all they want? The images themself aren't changed that often I
believe...
> then again, i could care less what you recommend as it seems your feet
> aren't firmly planted in reality and your head doesn't interpret
> practicality...plus, at the end of the day, only one of us is
> bringing home a paycheck. ;^)
Now, behave :-).
Grtz,
--
Rik Wasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|