thanks Nigel.
yeah, last night I changed the system so at least it replicates the directory structure existing on the images. so if the root image is images/products/image.png the scaled version is stored in images/scaled/products/image.png.
I know that this doesn't completely address what you are saying. Particularly as most users just put all the images in the main directory.
I am interested in why you think that 'indexing' the scaled images is a good idea. Obviously there is a performance issue in searching 5000 files for a match. But is there something else I am missing?
Well, yes, I have some apprehension about putting the clean-up overhead on the client-side. I'd certainly put it as an option rather than a default. The thing is that it is a 'scan and delete' of orphaned files rather than a re-create scenario so would be relatively quick. And happening for a single page load once a week doesn't seem like a massive penalty particularly if it happens after page load.
But I do understand what you are saying. When I started thinking about this, my point was that all processing overheads should be on the admin end. So, I thought that 'scale on upload' was the way to go. I kind of got tied up in trying to use the existing medium and large formats of Zen and that meant that there was a whole loss of flexibility. This way works better because any zen_image request creates a scaled version so you can have 10 different scaled sizes. I do a lot of work with zoom effects and slideshows and other jQuery nonsense so it is good to be able to produce a scaled version of the exact size you want.
Which is all to say that i wanted to keep processing overhead on the admin side. But once you have compromised that to put the actual scaling overhead to client side then putting the clean up on client side is less of a kick in the teeth.
Should have version 2 up in the next couple of days.
It will have -
-- a similar scaling feature
-- an admin page for additional images and variants. A variant is just an alternative version of a scaled image. this is very flexible and I like it!
-- a first shot at the two clean up methods
It would be lovely if you could have another play.
Yes, I am trying to keep it as simple for the user, both in install and in use, as is humanly possible. I have read the IH support thread and only have huge admiration for the people who have taken that on.
Just as a last thought.
I think that I won't bother with some of the features in IH. For me it makes sense to do some of the issues in a separate mod. This definitely applies to front end features like the hover effects. But in this case what I am thinking of is building a upload modifier that takes care of :
- watermarking
- limiting maximum size
- adding sharpness
- renaming
Basically because I do think that those actions make more sense on upload.
In the past I have tried renaming uploads with a sanitised version of the product name. It seems to work well but should obviously be an option rather than a default.
Thanks again
