develooper Front page | perl.module-authors | Postings from May 2004

Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)

Thread Previous | Thread Next
From:
Mark Stosberg
Date:
May 1, 2004 05:58
Subject:
Re: CGI::Uploader (was: CGI::FileManager)
Message ID:
20040501125802.GA9336@summersault.com
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/ 

Thread Previous | Thread Next


nntp.perl.org: Perl Programming lists via nntp and http.
Comments to Ask Bjørn Hansen at ask@perl.org | Group listing | About