On Mon, 7 Oct 2002, Erik Price wrote: > On Monday, October 7, 2002, at 05:39 PM, Chris Devers wrote: > > > convention[al] wisdom seems to be that it's generally easier to just > > store the images as conventional files, and put the filesystem paths > > to those files in as regular character data in the database. > > I have heard one convincing argument for not doing so, and that is when > you need to maintain strict user-based permissions on the images
Fair enough, but you can still get that in this scheme if you set it up right -- provided that only the DB admin has login access to the machine (or at least, that non-authorized users can't get in to the directory where image files are kept). As long as the relevant reference table is locked down properly you should be okay. > > This arguably takes a little more overhead to set up -- purists would > > argue that it's wrong to keep data external to the database -- but > > once you get it set up this should generally be easier to manage. > > Maybe, but I disagree with the purists. I almost always disagree with purists. That's why I like Perl :) -- Chris Devers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Q: What lies on the bottom of the ocean and twitches? A: A nervous wreck.
