Image Handler 4 (for v1.5.x) Support Thread

[delia]

Image handler is installed on this website. I know it is and installed correctly. GD 2.3.11 is installed and enabled.

But it's not creating new images.

I'm so used to this working right out of the box that I'm now just confused.

I checked folder permissions. Can gd show up in the phpinfo but not work? Never seen it do that but this server is so locked down with mod security and its firewall that things just aren't normal.

[mc12345678]

In any case, it's use has LONG made the images in the bmz_cache unusable for many since you couldn't match the names of the images in the cache to their original "parent" images..

Thing is and part of my point a couple of posts back is that both could be used: the hash to do it's original task and the filename be left alone at the end to match or as is currently suggested approximate the original "parent" image. That is if the only goal was to provide an imahe name that could be matched to it's original "parent". However, the direction chosen has been to eliminate the hash portion entirely, which was why I asked what the goal of the hash was to ensure that other reasons for it being used weren't ignored.

Regardless McLovin will still need to take into account how the filename is named with consideration of the image size as I recall the sample names provided indicate that the image size becomes part of the filename like it does currently in the hash included version. So a similar problem in that regards still exists: what filename to use to swap an additional image with the primary image... And I would think the same solution would apply to use the name generated through the image_handler for the two images being swapped.

[DivaVocals]

Thing is and part of my point a couple of posts back is that both could be used: the hash to do it's original task and the filename be left alone at the end to match or as is currently suggested approximate the original "parent" image. That is if the only goal was to provide an imahe name that could be matched to it's original "parent". However, the direction chosen has been to eliminate the hash portion entirely, which was why I asked what the goal of the hash was to ensure that other reasons for it being used weren't ignored.

I understood your original point.. so here's the answer.. I don't know what the logic was behind Tim's original choice to use an MD5 hash to name the files.. He doesn't say in ANY of the original docs on his site (most of which have been incorporated into the current IH4 readme file..) So to err on the side of caution, I didn't rush to release this version when the change was made.. I wanted to see if there was anything that I hadn't considered that might "crop" up as a result of the change..

Since I've changed it and have it running in this form on a few places now (including my own site) I cannot see that the change has been detrimental.. So yep.. I stand by my original POV on this.. Folks have been asking about better file names from IH4 for YEARS.. A fellow Zenner generously provided the changes needed to do this, I've "beta tested" it for going on close to a year now.. I'm satisfied that this is the right direction.. I can't see where anyone is really gonna say "Gosh I miss the old obscure file names in IH4, can you bring those back?".. No one who's downloaded this version has said this either, nor have they raised any other concerns/issues.. So I'm comfortable submitting this new version..

[DivaVocals]

Image handler is installed on this website. I know it is and installed correctly. GD 2.3.11 is installed and enabled.

But it's not creating new images.

I'm so used to this working right out of the box that I'm now just confused.

I checked folder permissions. Can gd show up in the phpinfo but not work? Never seen it do that but this server is so locked down with mod security and its firewall that things just aren't normal.

At the risk of asking an obvious question, did you turn it on.. The setting that starts IH4 working is off by default when you install it..

[mc12345678]

I understood your original point.. so here's the answer.. I don't know what the logic was behind Tim's original choice to use an MD5 hash to name the files.. He doesn't say in ANY of the original docs on his site (most of which have been incorporated into the current IH4 readme file..) So to err on the side of caution, I didn't rush to release this version when the change was made.. I wanted to see if there was anything that I hadn't considered that might "crop" up as a result of the change..

Since I've changed it and have it running in this form on a few places now (including my own site) I cannot see that the change has been detrimental.. So yep.. I stand by my original POV on this.. Folks have been asking about better file names from IH4 for YEARS.. A fellow Zenner generously provided the changes needed to do this, I've "beta tested" it for going on close to a year now.. I'm satisfied that this is the right direction.. I can't see where anyone is really gonna say "Gosh I miss the old obscure file names in IH4, can you bring those back?".. No one who's downloaded this version has said this either, nor have they raised any other concerns/issues.. So I'm comfortable submitting this new version..

Let's see... Due diligence?! Check.... Right... Well then, let's get the party started. :)

[DivaVocals]

Let's see... Due diligence?! Check.... Right... Well then, let's get the party started. :)

Excellent!!

[McLovin]

Very interesting. Unfortunately, it seems that as it currently stands, any workable modification to this version of IH which would allow an image swap is well beyond my programming skills. (I've always been a bad programmer. I tend to take bits and pieces of different programs and put them together. That's why I end up with Frankenstein programs). But I think that with the new modification to IH (some form of human traceable naming convention) it might be possible. I'm very curious about the new version of IH.

[SStreich]

I have IH4 installed on 2 systems, both are zc154 all zc files are identical.(checked with wimerge). System1 is my test box (local) and the second is a live site.
IH4 functions properly on the local however on the live site it doesn't. When it's off all images work as they should, however when it's on they don't show in Admin>tools>IH4,
I also loose them for the Online catalog categories.
In the "specials" side box the image is gone but on mouseover it pops up.
They do write to the bmz_cache folder ie: "10-255.jpg.image.50x33.jpg"
In the error logs I am finding: File does not exist: /home/xxxxx/public_html/x (looks like something isn't being directed to the correct directory)
File does not exist: /home/xxxx/public_html/x, referer: http://www.xxxx.com/myadminfoldernam..._category_id=3

Since both systems have the same files etc this would kind of eliminate any interference. The only difference would be the configuration settings but since the images work without IH4 the configuration would be correct ???

I've been working on this for a couple days now and give up trying to figure it on my own- hopefully someone has seen his before :-))
Thanks

[mc12345678]

Haven't specifically seen it, but seems like it might be file/folder permissions on the bmz_cache directory.

[SStreich]

I found it- I realized I don't use htaccess on local so I checked that on the live site.
From ages ago I had entered a 301 for the bmz_cache, evidently I had seen numerous requests for it so I just gave it a 301 over to the base :-))
What a relief to find that old line in there, my hair is already starting to grow back :-))