On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 8:02 AM, Daniel Brown <parasane@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 9:56 AM, Nathan Nobbe <quickshiftin@xxxxxxxxx> > wrote: > > > > it sounds like thats what theyre talking about doing... > > > [snip!] > > > > that way, you could get rid of them almost as quickly as they are > created; > > you wont be overwriting any files for different users, and you have the > > garuantee that the sound bytes will no longer be required for use by the > > clients. because theyve gone to another page ;) and you eliminate any > > issue about knowing when the file has been completely downloaded by the > > client. > > A great idea if the audio is only being used as an embedded object > within a page. However, if a developer wants to use the functions to > create audio clips for another reason, the session expiration won't > work. > fair enough; but i did address all the aforementioned concerns. you threw that one at me from left field :D > > Conversely, if a developer wants to use the functions to create > audio clips for another reason, he or she will probably already have a > way of cleaning that up, as well! ;-P > > I suppose that further validates the idea. > > > i would still consider a cron as a cleanup script tho... > > I still think it's the best and most responsible way. However, > I'm also kicking around the idea of giving each member a larger > private tmp directory, that can then be cleaned out using Thiago's > idea - anything older than n hours is deleted by a function run from a > root cron. i thought this was pretty much what tedd was doing in the first place. i mean what else do you do w/ a cleanup script? you have to clean the files that are no longer in use.. And no, to those of you who are on my servers, it won't count > against your disk quota. ;-P good man. -nathan
