At 5:04 PM -0500 2/28/07, Mark wrote:
Images are typically best supported in the form of files. They are more easily manipulated by external tools. -snip- I could go on, but it should be clear enough that putting images in a database is not a good idea.
It's clear enough to me that it's not a bad idea -- it depends upon the purpose.
You also said: At 10:08 PM -0500 2/28/07, markw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
No, it just seems like if the only tool you are comfortable with is a hammer, then every job is more or less exactly like a nail.
Interesting, someone usually makes that comment to one who has a limited repertoire.
On one hand, I'm advocating using dB for image storage when the needs of the job are better served by doing that, while you only see only one way and that is to use the file system.
Can you not imagine any scenario where storing images in a dB would be a better choice? Or is this the hammer and nail thing you stated but failed to realize you were practicing?
I suggest, and it's only a suggestion, that before you condemn one practice and advocate another that you know both the good and bad of both.
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
