Thanks for the feedback Andy. > On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 09:00:36AM +0100, Andy Wardley wrote: > Mark Stosberg wrote: > > I think I want to make some slight tweaks to the API, but it's about > > ready for 1.0. It's built around my own common usage: Uploading images > > and storing meta data in a database. However, it works fine for non > > images as well. > > I think this module should be called CGI::Image::Upload, or perhaps > even CGI::Application::Image::Upload.
Except it works great for managing uploads of PDFs and other non image uploads as well. > It's not a generic module for uploading images (it makes assumptions about > the fact that you're using DBI for example). CGI.pm, CGI::Simple, Apache::Request, etc already handle the basics of file uploading. I go a step further to allow management as part of a web application. > And there's certainly far too much image specific functionality to > warrant such a general name. > > > The facility to create image thumbnails, for example, certainly doesn't > belong in a generic CGI::Upload module. It creates thumbnails by calling Image::Magick. That's it. > It's really just a module that implements your particular image upload > web application, IMHO. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's > plenty of room on CPAN for it, if you want to upload it. But please > give it a name that reflects what it actually does. I'm open to suggestions. I won't give it an image-specific name, because it's not image specific. [Ponders]. Perhaps I could name it CGI::Uploader::DBI. If the storage scheme becomes uncoupled from DBI in the future, CGI::Uploader could be that base class. > > BTW, I looked at CGI::Upload too and don't currently recommend it. Check out > > the bug reports currently filed against it. > > I can see two minor bugs that require little more than a line or two of > changes to fix them, and one feature request which includes code. Are > there some other bugs I'm missing? This bug is not minor: http://rt.cpan.org/NoAuth/Bug.html?id=1854 Uploads from Windows are not being detected properly. (Which is a much broader issue than the bug name implies.) They are easy fixes, but they are unfixed now, which is why I can't currently recommend it. With one important bug being open for over a year, it doesn't seem promising that it will get fixed Real Soon Now. > Personally I would rather see efforts made on fixing these bugs than > releasing a new module with an almost identical name that does something > less useful for most of the people, most of the time. I like CGI::Upload as a concept and would like to see it's bugs fixed as well, which is why I contributed to the bug reports. CGI::Uploader is much more extensive in the functionality it offers, rather than a direct competitor. Mark -- http://mark.stosberg.com/
