Piwigo.org

VDigital · 2009-07-15 09:23:31

plg wrote:
Using the original filename as a key for uniqueness sounds dangerous to me.

This is the reason I suggested an option.

plg · 2009-07-15 09:56:06

VDigital wrote:
plg wrote:
Using the original filename as a key for uniqueness sounds dangerous to me.
This is the reason I suggested an option.

I don't understand your point :-/ You say you know that original filename doesn't count for uniqueness, you agree that it's dangerous, but you suggest it as an option. Do I understand correctly?

VDigital · 2009-07-15 13:28:44

VDigital wrote:
Override is an option (Possible or Never).

A pLoader option.

If the user selects "Possible".
It means on same filename and same createdDateTime but with a different md5, pLoader have to override.

jdd · 2010-01-05 09:55:47

Hello :-)

I happen to be concerned by the file name. Some things:

* is the md5sum used to give a filename (not clear if you use a random value or the md5sum)? because the md5sum is a calculated value it don't seems so secure (but may be i'm paranoid and if you can calculate the md5sum you already have the picture :-);

* the filename *is* displayed in piwigo, so it could be also used for the dowload link (piwigo link to download the image). The goal is to make it easy to find the picture on the hard drive after the download :-)). The filename can be somewhat normalized yet be identifiable (and UTF-8 solves most such problems).

* A new option in ploader would be very usefull: "upload first normal images, then high def".

As said, upload of "normal" (medium resolution) images is fast. Piwigo *don't need* high def, so I already use a rsync --exclude option to upload only lowres and thumnails first, then upload high def during night. Ploader could do the same.

plg · 2010-01-18 01:24:31

Hi jdd,

jdd wrote:
* is the md5sum used to give a filename (not clear if you use a random value or the md5sum)? because the md5sum is a calculated value it don't seems so secure (but may be i'm paranoid and if you can calculate the md5sum you already have the picture :-);

We use the 8 first characters of the original photo md5sum. And it is secure (it is high above the required level of security). If you don't have the photo, the md5sum is like a random string.

jdd wrote:
* the filename *is* displayed in piwigo, so it could be also used for the dowload link (piwigo link to download the image). The goal is to make it easy to find the picture on the hard drive after the download :-)). The filename can be somewhat normalized yet be identifiable (and UTF-8 solves most such problems).

The filename is diplayed in Piwigo only if you choose in pLoader to use the filename as photo title.

[Bugtracker] ticket 967

But I don't know how to use the "original_filename" if you right-click "save image as" on the photo.

jdd wrote:
* A new option in ploader would be very usefull: "upload first normal images, then high def".

As said, upload of "normal" (medium resolution) images is fast. Piwigo *don't need* high def, so I already use a rsync --exclude option to upload only lowres and thumnails first, then upload high def during night. Ploader could do the same.

Well this is a very very very advanced option :-) I really like the fact that pLoader work 1 photo at once. If we introduce this kind of behavior, we won't perform N transferts but a single transfert of N photos (and that's a bit more complicated). In my opinion there are many improvements to be done in pLoader before this one, but maybe one day :-) Can you add your request in the bugtracker please?

plg · 2010-01-27 00:46:28

I've got some news tonight about this topic :-), I have added a note in the bugtracker (but the bugtracker is not fine for discussions)

plg wrote:
While solving the 0001404 issue, I realized that I could simply use the existing images.file field.

This field is only used for display and when updating the images.path field. BUT photos added with pwg.images.add always keep their original images.path, it's not updated with the "Administration>Specials>Maintenance>Update images informations" action.

I've played with action.php so that when you download the high definition photo, the downloaded file is not basename($path) but directly the content of images.file. Conclusion : instead of downloading 20100124234702-e69de1d9.jpg I download "Le gros Rhinô €urodéputé 步提高.jpg"

If we consider the very first question of yoDan, if we store the original filename in images.file, the problem belongs to the past with this solution :-)

VDigital · 2010-01-27 08:30:20

I am fine with the original_filename...

Just a remark on:

plg wrote:
Conclusion : instead of downloading 20100124234702-e69de1d9.jpg I download "Le gros Rhinô €urodéputé 步提高.jpg"

I understand what your are trying to obtain (That would be perfect).

Today:
If you download 20100124234702-e69de1d9.jpg you will get 20100124234702-e69de1d9.jpg on your PC.
and
If you upload "Le gros Rhinô €urodéputé 步提高.jpg" you will get 20100124234702-e69de1d9.jpg on your server.

I can't imagine how you can change name of the file in the download process.

plg · 2010-01-27 08:34:11

VDigital wrote:
I can't imagine how you can change name of the file in the download process.

In action.php, I've replaced:

Code:

 $http_headers[] = 'Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="'
           .basename($file).'";';

by

Code:

  $http_headers[] = 'Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="'.$element_info['file'].'";';

VDigital · 2010-01-27 09:15:48

I will test it.
Thxs for clarification.

That anyway doesn't change the right click download.

VDigital · 2010-01-27 12:50:49

No doubt on action.php change.

Imagine HD on a specific page.

We could replace all source by:
<img src="./external_name.php?id=xxx" ...

A new option? (So the right-click could be managed as well).
Only thumbnail will keep the physical names.

Piwigo.org

Announcement

#16 2009-07-15 09:23:31

Re: Ignored sort order

plg wrote:

#17 2009-07-15 09:56:06

Re: Ignored sort order

VDigital wrote:

plg wrote:

#18 2009-07-15 13:28:44

Re: Ignored sort order

VDigital wrote:

#19 2010-01-05 09:55:47

Re: Ignored sort order

#20 2010-01-18 01:24:31

Re: Ignored sort order

jdd wrote:

jdd wrote:

jdd wrote:

#21 2010-01-27 00:46:28

Re: Ignored sort order

plg wrote:

#22 2010-01-27 08:30:20

Re: Ignored sort order

plg wrote:

#23 2010-01-27 08:34:11

Re: Ignored sort order

VDigital wrote:

Code:

Code:

#24 2010-01-27 09:15:48

Re: Ignored sort order

#25 2010-01-27 12:50:49

Re: Ignored sort order

Board footer