Image handler vs upcoming Zen 1.5

Reading Kuroi's comments in the 'mods that work with 1.5' thread made me think about image handler.

Obviously, Image handler has been the main tool for image resizing on most zen carts in the last few years. So, my initial thoughts were that not having it available in 1.5 was a major concern. Also, there was an element of sadness that some similar feature is not yet included in Zen as it is in many more recent carts.

However, after a bit of thought, I kind of ended up with a different thought process. I wondered what other people thought. Here are my thoughts to get a conversation started.

1. Image handler is actually a bit of a monster these days. A lot of that has to do with the 'creating resized images on the fly' approach and then caching them. Perhaps a step back to resizing on upload would be a better solution these days. As a suggestion, perhaps a resize to small, medium and large on upload is a way to go? Yes, of course, one would need a 'rebuild' feature in the situation where image sizes on the front end changed. (hmmm, this is kind of like automating the existing Zen Cart small/medium/large arrangement - so respect for the developers here)

2. A lot of the extra features in Image Handler are just not needed. These days if I want a fancy effect on an image then I would just build a jQuery module that did exactly what I wanted. I think that what I would want from a module that image handled is to provide me with re-sized versions of the images as the raw materials for this type of mod. The fancy, front-end, display stuff is better handled by bespoke modules that are tailored to do exactly what is needed.

So, what I see is a module that
--re-sizes on upload and saves in the appropriate folders.
--has a rebuild feature that will re-create the scaled images if the front end size changes.
--probably has an admin page for easily uploading additional images to products
--uses the existing Zen Cart code, perhaps adapted a bit, to select the correct size of image and use it.

That's about it really. It is simple and is not a huge programming challenge. I can't see how this would create increased security problems the way the present Image Handler is doing. But would be interested to know the thoughts of those of you with more security knowledge than me.

It is not as ######## ( ha ha I can't write s-e-x-y in this forum) as having 're-size and cache on the fly' but it is simple and straight-forward.

And again, if the default image handling in Zen Cart is likely to be changed in the near(ish) future it would be good to know so that not too much time was wasted coding a solution like this ( or making Image handler work with 1.5 in a secure way ) So if one of the devs could comment that would be great.

I seem to recall that the very early version, IH1 did create the small medium and large images on upload.

I much prefer the current version as I can "play" with the images sizes and very quickly determine what sizes look good for a particular site.

Yes, development is different but during development the worst that can happen is that the saved image is slightly the wrong size and it will be scaled by the browser. So, it might not look perfect as far as resolution goes. Which during development is not a huge problem. Or that is my take on it anyway. Once the sizes are more nailed down you'd just rebuild all the images to the correct size.

I do not like Image Handler because of the complexity of installing, upgrading and removing. I moved to Image Manager when 1.3.9 was released, it's far better and easier to upgrade!!

Sadly, image resizing is not automated on the fly or on upload, you have to access the Image Manager Admin page. Maybe drop the dev a line and see how you can work on that part of Image Manager.

If that could be achieved with Image Manager, it would be awesome. Image Handler for me is such a pain for upgrading that if I had not of found Image Manager I would of switched cart scripts for a cart with 'image handler' style management built-in. I dislike IH that much.

http://www.zen-cart.com/index.php?main_page=product_contrib_info&products_id=1441

@ray

thanks. just goes to show. I didn't know about Image manger. I'll have a look. It seems to have some nice administration features. Combined with a resize on upload it might suit me. And resize on upload is not a complicated but of coding.

niccol:

2. A lot of the extra features in Image Handler are just not needed. These days if I want a fancy effect on an image then I would just build a jQuery module that did exactly what I wanted. I think that what I would want from a module that image handled is to provide me with re-sized versions of the images as the raw materials for this type of mod. The fancy, front-end, display stuff is better handled by bespoke modules that are tailored to do exactly what is needed.
   And even in the IH3 readme we acknowledge that the fancy image hover is NOT the primary reason to use IH3. In fact I have said outright that the image hover feature is truly a "nice to have" feature and NOT the primary reason to use IH3.. The hotzone feature was disabled because it did not work and those of us who worked on IH3 did not feel the hotzone feature was worth the development effort needed to get it working. That said IMHO the only "extra" feature that IH3 offers that I think is remotely useful is the watermarking feature. (a feature that Gallery 2 also offers)

@ DIva
Interesting. Thanks for the input :-)

OK. Next question. What are the meaningful features? I'd like to see:

-watermarking
-ability to add unsharp mask

What else?

Nick

I use image manager 1.6 and that has a watermark feature. i think it is upto version 1.8 now but i have not upgraded so it might have more features? Image handed put me off with the nightmare of upgrading.

niccol:

@ DIva
Interesting. Thanks for the input :-Happy to contribute to the discussion.. :smile: It's a good topic.. I had a similar discussion a few months back with a forum member about how to make Image Handler better..

dutchy:

I use image manager 1.6 and that has a watermark feature. i think it is upto version 1.8 now but i have not upgraded so it might have more features? Image handed put me off with the nightmare of upgrading.
What nightmare?? The readme has very CLEAR easy instructions for upgrading and installing?? These instructions were crafted by several of us who extensively tested not only the installation, but the upgrade..

@niccol

Image handler does do watermarking and
There is an admin page for uploading additional images (there are 2 ways to access the page) either

1. in admin - Catalog link --> categories/product drill down to the product you want click the Imagehandler icon and you are on a page where you can add additional images to that product.
2. in admin - Tools --> Image handler 3 --> Manager tab, select your category from the dropdown, then select your product from the displayed list. and there is a bit to add/delete additional images, you can also add in say a medium image if you want your medium image to be different to the large image.

I personally prefer method 2

If any of the additional images are displayed in red it means they won't display

@diva

I think i'll take this chance to say that none of what I say is meant as criticism for IH. It has been one of the first mods that I have installed on sites over the last few years. The fact that some people find the install and upgrade complex is more due to the structure of Zen than the module. Even as a supporter of Zen it is hard not to yearn for modules that reside in their own directory and can be installed and upgraded at the click of a button, but hey, we know why that isn't possible as it stands and also know that the developers are aware of this.

I probably wouldn't have thought about any of this if it hadn't been for the issues with IH and Zen 1.5. But having thought about it I still think that the model based on 'resize on upload' works better for a store that is up and running. It just uses a small bit of processing resources during upload but after that is much more efficient.

Having thought more about development I think that during development I am happy not to use any image handling at all. The browser will rescale just fine for me to play with layout options ( exactly as it does with no module installed ) and I don't care about the performance penalty during development.

@nigelt
yes, I am aware that IH can watermark. and yes I am aware that it handles additional images just fine. That is not my point. To restate it my problems are:

1. There seems to be some security issues with IH. These are being highlighted by the increased security awareness of Zen 1.5.

2. There is a whole lot of code and associated processing involved in the way IH works that makes me wonder if it is actually the best way of handling images on an 'up and running' store. I think not but that is what the discussion is about.

The question I asked earlier was in regards to which parts of IH people actually value. As diva said watermarking is something that is of value to many people. The handling of additional images is obviously of value. On my wishlist I would also add the ability to add unsharp mask to images.

niccol:

I think i'll take this chance to say that none of what I say is meant as criticism for IH. It has been one of the first mods that I have installed on sites over the last few years.Never took this to be a criticism.. I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion 'tis all..:cool:

niccol:

The fact that some people find the install and upgrade complex is more due to the structure of Zen than the module.I agree.. This is why IMHO it helps to have very explicit readme docs (one of the things we worked very hard to improve upon with the latest version of IH3)

niccol:

1. There seems to be some security issues with IH. These are being highlighted by the increased security awareness of Zen 1.5.Care to elaborate on what those issues are?? Just want to understand as I've been ill the last few months and have not had ANY opportunity to do any testing with v1.5..

DivaVocals:

Care to elaborate on what those issues are?? Just want to understand as I've been ill the last few months and have not had ANY opportunity to do any testing with v1.5..

Well, not really, because I just took Kuroi's word for it. :smile: If you read through the thread about modules that work with 1.5 you will see his comments.

@diva
no offence but IH is a major period pain if you have conflicting mod. a mass chew on to remove with the abundance of files and overall crap. i liked it when i used 1.3.8a. i was turned off it with 1.3.9 and loathed it by 139d. image manager is far easier to use, install, upgrade, remove, less files, less hacks....... far far better

needed a rewrite for 139, needs a rewrite for 1.5, time to ditch it i think

niccol:

Well, not really, because I just took Kuroi's word for it. :smile: If you read through the thread about modules that work with 1.5 you will see his comments.
got it..

dutchy:

@diva
no offence but IH is a major period pain if you have conflicting mod. a mass chew on to remove with the abundance of files and overall crap. i liked it when i used 1.3.8a. i was turned off it with 1.3.9 and loathed it by 139d. image manager is far easier to use, install, upgrade, remove, less files, less hacks....... far far better

needed a rewrite for 139, needs a rewrite for 1.5, time to ditch it i think
Not offended.. (not sure how you assumed that) Simply trying to get you to substantiate your GENERAL statements with some SPECIFICS to understand what you mean by the things you have stated..

My experience...if you know how to do Zen Cart upgrades correctly, Image handler causes no problems with that process, but I have done hundreds of upgrades

DivaVocals:

Care to elaborate on what those issues are?? Just want to understand as I've been ill the last few months and have not had ANY opportunity to do any testing with v1.5..

Yep Kuroi has an explanation, basically some of the $_GET s are not as secure as they could be especially if you want to get PCI certified, this does effect loads of different mods not just Image Handler it should be pointed out. Also the problematic $_gets are all in the admin section so a hacker would need to know your admin directory name to even start being able to run them.
I have had a look and a go fixing the issue, but probably won't be near to finishing a beta till next week, also some of the original zenfiles that IH is based on have been updated in 1.5 and need to be updated to match.

barco57:

My experience...if you know how to do Zen Cart upgrades correctly, Image handler causes no problems with that process, but I have done hundreds of upgrades I couldn't agree more..:yes:

nigelt74:

Yep Kuroi has an explanation, basically some of the $_GET s are not as secure as they could be especially if you want to get PCI certified, this does effect loads of different mods not just Image Handler it should be pointed out. Also the problematic $_gets are all in the admin section so a hacker would need to know your admin directory name to even start being able to run them.
I have had a look and a go fixing the issue, but probably won't be near to finishing a beta till next week, also some of the original zenfiles that IH is based on have been updated in 1.5 and need to be updated to match.
Ahhhhh Nigel to the rescue as ususal!!:smile:

Thanks for the details.. I get it now.. :smile::smile: Looking forward to testing v1.5 and your IH3 beta..

Hmmm, I think we kind of have gotten sidetracked onto whether IH is good or not. It has been used by thousands of shops so it obviously has something going for it.

@Nigel - great if you sort out the GET issues :-) I had a look and it was one of those things that just felt it was going to eat my time. So big respect for you.

To me the choice is between the complexity of IH or making a change to a single file to allow resize on upload. Taking a bit of step back from the forest in order to see the trees, I think I will go that route. What meaningful does IH offer me that 'resize on upload' doesn't?

I can add options for watermarking and unsharp mask.

So, I guess the answer is that IH provides nice additional image handling but that can be built as a separate admin page the way it is in IH.

Just my thoughts. And as always I think that there is room for different approaches to the challenge. One of the sad things is that two approaches can not be run at the same time because they both will want to hook into handle_image()....