On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 2:41 PM, haliphax <haliphax@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Michael Shadle <mike503@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 6:20 AM, haliphax <haliphax@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> Michael, >>> >>> Given the fact that Gears requires a client-side installation, has an >>> awful penetration percentage, and his original solution is all >>> server-side (though it does require APC and YUI-JS), I wouldn't say >>> this is a very good suggestion. Compared to what he has already found, >>> the Gears solution is not "clean" by any stretch of the imagination. >> >> a) the native solution that requires APC is not multi-webserver capable >> b) i was just sharing a different approach to an idea. who knows. it >> might be something to explore. gears is pretty lightweight, and for >> the ease of this and the functionality it brings (not to mention >> cross-browser+platform) i see a compelling reason to give it a shot. >> c) the APC method -still- requires webserver tweaks and post max size >> etc. this is sending small chunks of data, is proxy-safe, and requires >> nothing on the server; all that is required is gears, which is a >> library to extend your browser's capabilities and i have not heard any >> issues with it or security holes thus far. penetration is an issue but >> when more sites push it and say "hey, you should install it" the >> penetration will grow. not to mention youtube for example is using >> roughly the same method and picking up a lot of browser installs off >> that. > >> i completely disagree it is not "clean" - it is literally one browser >> addon that a lot of people do have, comes from a reputable company, >> and creates basically limitless upload capabilities - i can do 300 meg >> files without blinking - it's not one long single POST that can fail >> anytime, it's lots of small POST requests; it takes basic PHP on the >> server and then some javascript for the UI (all the pieces to get a >> basic functional install i sent links to) > > Unless you are in a corporate environment where you control what is > installed on your visitors' machines, then just about any server-side > hell you have to put yourself through is "cleaner" to the client than > them needing to install ANYTHING. > > I'm sorry if my opinion seems a little too "black and white," but > those are the breaks. I can definitely say that, coming from a higher > education institution standpoint, the site I work on would ALWAYS do > something server-side and exhaust all of those possibilities before > forcing prospective students, applicants, etc. to download additional > software for their web browser. > > It depends on the clientele, really. It also depends on the servers. If you're behind load balanced webservers, the APC solution is out. If you're on a shared hosting solution, it most likely is out (due to some config tweaking) You're limited to the POST size limits and other file upload limitations inside of php.ini on the server etc. If your clientele find it useful enough, they will download it. People are stupid enough to click on viruses, why would they not click on something that comes from a reputable source as well, and promises them large file uploads, looks like it is part of the website (and not some hokey looking UI from an applet) and is SSL-friendly, proxy-friendly, etc, etc... -- PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/) To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
