Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)
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/
Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)
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. It's not a generic module for uploading images (it makes assumptions about the fact that you're using DBI for example). 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'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. BTW, I looked at CGI::Upload too and don't currently recommend it. Check out the bug reports currently filed against it. CGI::Upload looks like it fits the bill perfectly to me. It does one thing and from what I can tell, it does it well. 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? 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. A
Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)
On Sat, May 01, 2004 at 07:58:02AM -0500, Mark Stosberg wrote: 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. It would be nice if there were some way to take over management of the module from the current owner. If they aren't responsive, there ought to be some mechanism for doing it without their input. Having multiple modules which appear to provide parallel benefit can end up confusing the users as to which module is the best. Anyway, my point being that it would be nice if you could take over CGI::Upload itself, and maybe just add functionality to that. Austin
Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Austin Schutz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: It would be nice if there were some way to take over management of the module from the current owner. If they aren't responsive, there ought to be some mechanism for doing it without their input. if you need to take over a module, post to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . I or another PAUSE admin can help you. We will try to reach the original module owner in any way we can first, and give them ample time to reply (in case they are on vacation, and so on). This is something we do very rarely, and in this case it sounds appropriate. -- brian d foy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)
On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:47:49PM -0200, Gabor Szabo wrote: I am looking for a module that can be used as part of a web based application which requires management of a (partial) file system. If there is no such module I wonder if it would be interesting to add to CPAN ? So my questions are: - Is there such a module that someone could recommend ? I'm now polishing a module which manages file uploads: http://search.cpan.org/dist/CGI-Uploader/ 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. It doesn't meet all of your requirements, but may be useful as a component. The distribution includes a Cookbook with walk-through examples, as well as a complete (very simple) application. While I store the meta data in a database, I have some interest in supporting other storage schemes as well. The API is only lightly tied to need a DB now, but should be able to be un-coupled fairly easily. BTW, I looked at CGI::Upload too and don't currently recommend it. Check out the bug reports currently filed against it. Mark -- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark StosbergPrincipal Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Summersault, LLC 765-939-9301 ext 202 database driven websites . . . . . http://www.summersault.com/ . . . . . . . .
