Not an issue since you don't need to edit the htaccess file for every file.
You set it for the whole directory.
The only reason for preventing ppl to access files would be theft of
bandwith. If you worry about ppl being able to get the images then you
shouldn't publish them at all. You can't pr
: unlisted-recipients:; no To-header on input
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: images with mysql
sure you can. And i don't mind you disagreeing with me either =)
Although, if the solution/site is meant to be used by other than people
who know something about the webserver i don't think
sure you can. And i don't mind you disagreeing with me either =)
Although, if the solution/site is meant to be used by other than people
who know something about the webserver i don't think it's a good solution.
I can imagine writing something that reads the htaccess-file and edits
it... but i do
You can use other ways to protect your images from linking by others. Like
with Apache and htaccess..
I don't agree with you on your opinion that it's easier to code. If you
insert a link into your database all you have to do is retrieve it and push
the link to the browser.
B.
At 20:18 20-0
hey all.. new to the list.
Just my 5 cents...
I think it's better to store images in the database, sure you loose a bit
in performance, but it's easier to code.
The way i've done it before is always a separate render.php (or what ever)
that compares the users rights to view that image, get's the
I assume it is, have not tested it..
If you need to fetch the files from the database your app needs to wait
until it has recieved the data. If you only store name/path info it will
take less time to fetch the data, ship it off to the browser which can
start fetching the images without connecti
Lai Liu-yuan wrote:
>
> Well, this may be off topic.
>
> In my case, I store tens of thousands of images, gradually growing. All of them are
> quite small, most around 30*30 gray scale. Would it still be faster to store them on
> disk?
>
In most cases yes. We have over 3.5 million images store
Well, this may be off topic.
In my case, I store tens of thousands of images, gradually growing. All of them are
quite small, most around 30*30 gray scale. Would it still be faster to store them on
disk?
On Thu, 20 Mar 2003 13:57:06 +0100
"B. van Ouwerkerk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> IMHO it
IMHO it's better to store a link.
I have seen databases (not MySQL) getting corrupted because the file
inserted was to big.
For the visitor it doesn't really matter whether you put it into the
database or not. A link is less difficult and you don't have to retrieve
pictures from the database so
I am now having a database storing images of chinese characters for research purpose.
I wrote a program to store and retrieve them. My images are of type ppm. This is how I
designed my table:
mysql> describe poor;
+++--+-+-+---+
| Field | Type
it helps a bit.
Simon
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: 20 March 2003 09:34
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: images with mysql
Hi!
I have a problem with my MySQL
I need to have some a images related with an item
f
Hi!
I have a problem with my MySQL
I need to have some a images related with an item
for example
--
! author ! date of birth an death ! image!
--
How can I define the field for the images? I have read that LONGBLOB
12 matches
Mail list logo
