[thelist] [CODE] bloated image src names

.jeff jeff at members.evolt.org
Tue Nov 12 18:55:11 CST 2002


rudy,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: r937 at interlog.com
>
> > first, to provide a folder for the client to
> > upload images for their site with no worries
> > about them deleting or renaming images that are
> > key to the design of the site.
>
> very valid reason...
>
> .. assuming it applies, which it does not in every site
>
> especially my site, eh
>
> i don't allow nobody to upload there   ;o)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

in my quote above, the word "client" is referring to the person
administrating the site, not someone using it from the frontend.  i agree
that it doesn't apply to every site.  however, the more projects i do, the
more i find that it does indeed apply.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > second, product imagery.  in the case of one client,
> > there are over 4000 products in the database.  each
> > product has 4 images.  that's over 16,000 images in
> > one directory.  it wouldn't make any sense to throw
> > the dozen+ images for other sections of the site in
> > with those 16,000.  that'd make it a pain to find the
> > few, non-product related images.
>
> sorry, not valid
>
> define "makes sense"
>
> if finding an image is a pain, the naming convention
> is inadequate
>
> i'll tell you what, show me a directory with fifty
> thousand images in it, and i bet i can drop three or
> four of my own in there and then find them -- just by
> their name!!! -- in seconds
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

sure, as long as that "in seconds" estimate doesn't account for the many,
many seconds it'll take to request, download, and render the file listing
for those 50,000 files.  in an environment where access to a defined group
of images is available through a custom interface this problem is
multiplied.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> seriously, if you have images in an "images" folder, i
> bet you can replace the slash with an underscore, and
> not hit the 64-char file name limit, and does that make
> an individual image any harder to find?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

sure, you could.  but why?  now you've got images floating around with
application templates and/or static html files.  as the site becomes more
complex you'll inevitably have to convert it to a site organized with
folders to make it easier to maintain.

i personally use folders for other things besides just organization in the
web directory.  i also use them to organize application code so it's in a
non-web accessible directory making it more difficult to hack around at the
site/application to purposely break it.  without folders, i'd be unable to
do this.

sure, i see the point you're trying to make that semantically
"images_foo_bar.jpg" is the same as "images/foo/bar.jpg".  however, i don't
see the point that there are any advantages to the former.

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/




More information about the thelist mailing list