> -----Original Message-----
> From: mzem...@osc.state.ny.us [mailto:mzem...@osc.state.ny.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:28 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
> No offense Bas but that seems like a major hassle, especially
> considering with an ORM its a simple update/delete/find.
> When it comes time to build out new servers now you have to
> shuffle around 300k photos instead of simply replicating a
> database. Also sounds like it would make debugging more
> difficult when your images are three or more folders deep.
> And what if you want to store attributes along with the
> photos? Like say user comments, or flag them for
> inappropriate content, copyright infringement, etc. What if
> there is an open file handle when you try to delete the
> image? Just seems to me a much smoother solution to put in a
> db. But with that I'm bowing out because as you said it's a
> heated debate and comes down to personal preference.
Next version will have images in db. Arguments you serve I know,
from point of another atributes database is better.
>
>
>
>
> From: Bas Gooren <b...@iswd.nl>
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Date: 03/15/2011 02:10 PM
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
>
>
> Now you're talking about rendering them, which is a different
> topic than mounting a resource which serves said images.
>
> You'll only need to mount a single shared resource which
> serves all the images. However, given the amount of images
> you can consider allowing your front-end (e.g. apache httd)
> or a dedicated webserver serve the images.
>
> Since you mention that the amount of images can be
> potentially large (>250), I'd suggest removing the "show all"
> option, or using an ajax viewport (max 20-50 images on-screen
> at a time, when the user scrolls you load new images over ajax).
>
> Someone else just suggested storing images in the database.
> While there is usually heated debate about this topic (files
> on disk vs in the database), let me just say that simply
> having lots of images is no reason to move images into the
> database. For starters, you can always store your files in a
> hashed folder structure, e.g. when the ID is 1234, store the
> image in a file/folder called /1/2/3/4.jpg
>
> Bas
>
> Op 15-3-2011 18:00, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> > Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album
> where they
> upload
> > images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can
> > browse their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"...
> "show all" images.
> On
> > page
> > I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
> > All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
> > Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more
> than 3.000
> > images in one photoalbum.
> >
> > Or -how to do it better way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Laco
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:b...@iswd.nl]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
> >> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
> >>
> >> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes the
> >> filename from the url.
> >> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler
> one-by-one.
> >>
> >> Bas
> >>
> >> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
> >>> (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
> >>> Simplified code look
> >>> like:
> >>>
> >>> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
> >>> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
> >>> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
> >> Collections.sort(lList); int
> >>> i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
> >>> while(iterator.hasNext())
> >>> {
> >>> iterator.next();
> >>> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
> >>> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
> >>> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
> >>> i++;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pointing,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ladislav DANKO
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> >>>
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Notice: This communication, including any attachments, is
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is protected from disclosure under State
> and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if
> you have received this communication in error and delete this
> email from your system. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are requested not to disclose, copy,
> distribute or take any action in reliance on the contents of
> this information.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
