You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by Ladislav DANKO <em...@1ac0.net> on 2011/03/10 23:01:10 UTC
mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Hi all,
what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images (thousands)
in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck? Simplified code look
like:
Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
File[] files = folder.getFiles();
List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
Collections.sort(lList);
int i = 0;
Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
while(iterator.hasNext())
{
iterator.next();
String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
i++;
}
But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
Thanks for pointing,
--
Ladislav DANKO
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
RE: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by MZ...@osc.state.ny.us.
For that many photos I would suggest storing them in a database. Storing
that many images on the file system is cumbersome and inefficient in my
opinion. You might run into many headaches especially around backups,
deploys, upgrades, performance, file names, storage space, etc...
From: "Ladislav DANKO" <em...@1ac0.net>
To: <us...@wicket.apache.org>
Date: 03/15/2011 01:01 PM
Subject: RE: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album where they
upload
images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can browse
their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"... "show all" images. On
page
I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more than 3.000
images
in one photoalbum.
Or -how to do it better way?
Thanks,
Laco
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes
> the filename from the url.
> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler one-by-one.
>
> Bas
>
> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
> > (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
> > Simplified code look
> > like:
> >
> > Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
> > File[] files = folder.getFiles();
> > List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
> Collections.sort(lList); int
> > i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
> > while(iterator.hasNext())
> > {
> > iterator.next();
> > String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
> > mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
> > ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
> > i++;
> > }
> >
> > But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
> >
> > Thanks for pointing,
> >
> > --
> > Ladislav DANKO
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Notice: This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is protected from disclosure
under State and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if
you have received this communication in error and delete this email from
your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested not
to disclose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on the
contents of this information.
Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>.
Well, exactly. It's usually a debate where both parties have solid
arguments and it boils down to preference.
I work with both options in medium-sized installations and in the end
see the benefits of both options, but prefer disk-based file storage.
For most applications though, a CDN or something like Amazon S3 is a
great option if you don't want the storage "hassle". I say "hassle"
because managing hash-based storage is (imho) easy. It's only a matter
of adding a layer of abstraction between file access in the app and
actual file storage. Which is something I would always recommend to be
able to switch storage if required/desired.
This layer of abstraction can then either store files in the db, on
disk, both. It can also perform de-duplication, indexing, calculate a
hash for hash-based storage, store the file on S3, etc.
So to the original author: either way works, pick what you prefer and
suits your project best.
Bas
Op 15-3-2011 19:27, MZemeck@osc.state.ny.us schreef:
> No offense Bas but that seems like a major hassle, especially considering
> with an ORM its a simple update/delete/find. When it comes time to build
> out new servers now you have to shuffle around 300k photos instead of
> simply replicating a database. Also sounds like it would make debugging
> more difficult when your images are three or more folders deep. And what
> if you want to store attributes along with the photos? Like say user
> comments, or flag them for inappropriate content, copyright infringement,
> etc. What if there is an open file handle when you try to delete the
> image? Just seems to me a much smoother solution to put in a db. But
> with that I'm bowing out because as you said it's a heated debate and
> comes down to personal preference.
>
>
>
>
> From: Bas Gooren<ba...@iswd.nl>
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Date: 03/15/2011 02:10 PM
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
>
>
> Now you're talking about rendering them, which is a different topic than
> mounting a resource which serves said images.
>
> You'll only need to mount a single shared resource which serves all the
> images. However, given the amount of images you can consider allowing
> your front-end (e.g. apache httd) or a dedicated webserver serve the
> images.
>
> Since you mention that the amount of images can be potentially large
> (>250), I'd suggest removing the "show all" option, or using an ajax
> viewport (max 20-50 images on-screen at a time, when the user scrolls
> you load new images over ajax).
>
> Someone else just suggested storing images in the database. While there
> is usually heated debate about this topic (files on disk vs in the
> database), let me just say that simply having lots of images is no
> reason to move images into the database. For starters, you can always
> store your files in a hashed folder structure, e.g. when the ID is 1234,
> store the image in a file/folder called /1/2/3/4.jpg
>
> Bas
>
> Op 15-3-2011 18:00, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
>> Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album where they
> upload
>> images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can browse
>> their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"... "show all" images.
> On
>> page
>> I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
>> All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
>> Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more than 3.000
>> images
>> in one photoalbum.
>>
>> Or -how to do it better way?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Laco
>>
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
>>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
>>> To: users@wicket.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>>>
>>> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes
>>> the filename from the url.
>>> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler one-by-one.
>>>
>>> Bas
>>>
>>> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
>>>> (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
>>>> Simplified code look
>>>> like:
>>>>
>>>> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
>>>> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
>>>> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
>>> Collections.sort(lList); int
>>>> i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
>>>> while(iterator.hasNext())
>>>> {
>>>> iterator.next();
>>>> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
>>>> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
>>>> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
>>>> i++;
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for pointing,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ladislav DANKO
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>
>
>
>
>
> Notice: This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely
> for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
> communication may contain information that is protected from disclosure
> under State and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if
> you have received this communication in error and delete this email from
> your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested not
> to disclose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on the
> contents of this information.
RE: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by Ladislav DANKO <em...@1ac0.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: MZemeck@osc.state.ny.us [mailto:MZemeck@osc.state.ny.us]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:28 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
> No offense Bas but that seems like a major hassle, especially
> considering with an ORM its a simple update/delete/find.
> When it comes time to build out new servers now you have to
> shuffle around 300k photos instead of simply replicating a
> database. Also sounds like it would make debugging more
> difficult when your images are three or more folders deep.
> And what if you want to store attributes along with the
> photos? Like say user comments, or flag them for
> inappropriate content, copyright infringement, etc. What if
> there is an open file handle when you try to delete the
> image? Just seems to me a much smoother solution to put in a
> db. But with that I'm bowing out because as you said it's a
> heated debate and comes down to personal preference.
Next version will have images in db. Arguments you serve I know,
from point of another atributes database is better.
>
>
>
>
> From: Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Date: 03/15/2011 02:10 PM
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
>
>
> Now you're talking about rendering them, which is a different
> topic than mounting a resource which serves said images.
>
> You'll only need to mount a single shared resource which
> serves all the images. However, given the amount of images
> you can consider allowing your front-end (e.g. apache httd)
> or a dedicated webserver serve the images.
>
> Since you mention that the amount of images can be
> potentially large (>250), I'd suggest removing the "show all"
> option, or using an ajax viewport (max 20-50 images on-screen
> at a time, when the user scrolls you load new images over ajax).
>
> Someone else just suggested storing images in the database.
> While there is usually heated debate about this topic (files
> on disk vs in the database), let me just say that simply
> having lots of images is no reason to move images into the
> database. For starters, you can always store your files in a
> hashed folder structure, e.g. when the ID is 1234, store the
> image in a file/folder called /1/2/3/4.jpg
>
> Bas
>
> Op 15-3-2011 18:00, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> > Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album
> where they
> upload
> > images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can
> > browse their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"...
> "show all" images.
> On
> > page
> > I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
> > All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
> > Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more
> than 3.000
> > images in one photoalbum.
> >
> > Or -how to do it better way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Laco
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
> >> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
> >>
> >> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes the
> >> filename from the url.
> >> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler
> one-by-one.
> >>
> >> Bas
> >>
> >> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
> >>> (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
> >>> Simplified code look
> >>> like:
> >>>
> >>> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
> >>> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
> >>> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
> >> Collections.sort(lList); int
> >>> i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
> >>> while(iterator.hasNext())
> >>> {
> >>> iterator.next();
> >>> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
> >>> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
> >>> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
> >>> i++;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pointing,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ladislav DANKO
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >>>
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Notice: This communication, including any attachments, is
> intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed. This communication may contain
> information that is protected from disclosure under State
> and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if
> you have received this communication in error and delete this
> email from your system. If you are not the intended
> recipient, you are requested not to disclose, copy,
> distribute or take any action in reliance on the contents of
> this information.
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by MZ...@osc.state.ny.us.
No offense Bas but that seems like a major hassle, especially considering
with an ORM its a simple update/delete/find. When it comes time to build
out new servers now you have to shuffle around 300k photos instead of
simply replicating a database. Also sounds like it would make debugging
more difficult when your images are three or more folders deep. And what
if you want to store attributes along with the photos? Like say user
comments, or flag them for inappropriate content, copyright infringement,
etc. What if there is an open file handle when you try to delete the
image? Just seems to me a much smoother solution to put in a db. But
with that I'm bowing out because as you said it's a heated debate and
comes down to personal preference.
From: Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>
To: users@wicket.apache.org
Date: 03/15/2011 02:10 PM
Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Now you're talking about rendering them, which is a different topic than
mounting a resource which serves said images.
You'll only need to mount a single shared resource which serves all the
images. However, given the amount of images you can consider allowing
your front-end (e.g. apache httd) or a dedicated webserver serve the
images.
Since you mention that the amount of images can be potentially large
(>250), I'd suggest removing the "show all" option, or using an ajax
viewport (max 20-50 images on-screen at a time, when the user scrolls
you load new images over ajax).
Someone else just suggested storing images in the database. While there
is usually heated debate about this topic (files on disk vs in the
database), let me just say that simply having lots of images is no
reason to move images into the database. For starters, you can always
store your files in a hashed folder structure, e.g. when the ID is 1234,
store the image in a file/folder called /1/2/3/4.jpg
Bas
Op 15-3-2011 18:00, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album where they
upload
> images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can browse
> their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"... "show all" images.
On
> page
> I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
> All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
> Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more than 3.000
> images
> in one photoalbum.
>
> Or -how to do it better way?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Laco
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
>> To: users@wicket.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>>
>> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes
>> the filename from the url.
>> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler one-by-one.
>>
>> Bas
>>
>> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
>>> (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
>>> Simplified code look
>>> like:
>>>
>>> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
>>> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
>>> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
>> Collections.sort(lList); int
>>> i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
>>> while(iterator.hasNext())
>>> {
>>> iterator.next();
>>> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
>>> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
>>> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
>>> i++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ladislav DANKO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
Notice: This communication, including any attachments, is intended solely
for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. This
communication may contain information that is protected from disclosure
under State and/or Federal law. Please notify the sender immediately if
you have received this communication in error and delete this email from
your system. If you are not the intended recipient, you are requested not
to disclose, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on the
contents of this information.
RE: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by Ladislav DANKO <em...@1ac0.net>.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2011 7:10 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
> Now you're talking about rendering them, which is a different
> topic than mounting a resource which serves said images.
>
> You'll only need to mount a single shared resource which
> serves all the images. However, given the amount of images
> you can consider allowing your front-end (e.g. apache httd)
> or a dedicated webserver serve the images.
Is there example, please?
>
> Since you mention that the amount of images can be
> potentially large (>250), I'd suggest removing the "show all"
> option, or using an ajax viewport (max 20-50 images on-screen
> at a time, when the user scrolls you load new images over ajax).
>
> Someone else just suggested storing images in the database.
> While there is usually heated debate about this topic (files
> on disk vs in the database), let me just say that simply
> having lots of images is no reason to move images into the
> database. For starters, you can always store your files in a
> hashed folder structure, e.g. when the ID is 1234, store the
> image in a file/folder called /1/2/3/4.jpg
>
> Bas
>
> Op 15-3-2011 18:00, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> > Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album
> where they
> > upload images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users
> > can browse their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show
> 50"... "show
> > all" images. On page I render thumbnails on a page which
> are shadowbox
> > clickable images.
> > All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
> > Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more
> than 3.000
> > images in one photoalbum.
> >
> > Or -how to do it better way?
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Laco
> >
> >
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
> >> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
> >> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
> >>
> >> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes the
> >> filename from the url.
> >> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler
> one-by-one.
> >>
> >> Bas
> >>
> >> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
> >>> (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
> >>> Simplified code look
> >>> like:
> >>>
> >>> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
> >>> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
> >>> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
> >> Collections.sort(lList); int
> >>> i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
> >>> while(iterator.hasNext())
> >>> {
> >>> iterator.next();
> >>> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
> >>> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
> >>> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
> >>> i++;
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pointing,
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Ladislav DANKO
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> >>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >>>
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>.
Now you're talking about rendering them, which is a different topic than
mounting a resource which serves said images.
You'll only need to mount a single shared resource which serves all the
images. However, given the amount of images you can consider allowing
your front-end (e.g. apache httd) or a dedicated webserver serve the images.
Since you mention that the amount of images can be potentially large
(>250), I'd suggest removing the "show all" option, or using an ajax
viewport (max 20-50 images on-screen at a time, when the user scrolls
you load new images over ajax).
Someone else just suggested storing images in the database. While there
is usually heated debate about this topic (files on disk vs in the
database), let me just say that simply having lots of images is no
reason to move images into the database. For starters, you can always
store your files in a hashed folder structure, e.g. when the ID is 1234,
store the image in a file/folder called /1/2/3/4.jpg
Bas
Op 15-3-2011 18:00, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album where they upload
> images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can browse
> their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"... "show all" images. On
> page
> I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
> All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
> Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more than 3.000
> images
> in one photoalbum.
>
> Or -how to do it better way?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Laco
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
>> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
>> To: users@wicket.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>>
>> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes
>> the filename from the url.
>> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler one-by-one.
>>
>> Bas
>>
>> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
>>> (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
>>> Simplified code look
>>> like:
>>>
>>> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
>>> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
>>> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
>> Collections.sort(lList); int
>>> i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
>>> while(iterator.hasNext())
>>> {
>>> iterator.next();
>>> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
>>> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
>>> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
>>> i++;
>>> }
>>>
>>> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
>>>
>>> Thanks for pointing,
>>>
>>> --
>>> Ladislav DANKO
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
RE: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by Ladislav DANKO <em...@1ac0.net>.
Imagine this situation: users have accounts on photo album where they upload
images. System from uploaded images create thumbnails. Users can browse
their photo - there is combo "show 25", "show 50"... "show all" images. On
page
I render thumbnails on a page which are shadowbox clickable images.
All images ("show all") I do in way described below.
Works fine but in extreme situation there is user with more than 3.000
images
in one photoalbum.
Or -how to do it better way?
Thanks,
Laco
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bas Gooren [mailto:bas@iswd.nl]
> Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 11:32 PM
> To: users@wicket.apache.org
> Subject: Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
>
> The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes
> the filename from the url.
> There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler one-by-one.
>
> Bas
>
> Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images
> > (thousands) in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck?
> > Simplified code look
> > like:
> >
> > Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
> > File[] files = folder.getFiles();
> > List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
> Collections.sort(lList); int
> > i = 0; Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
> > while(iterator.hasNext())
> > {
> > iterator.next();
> > String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
> > mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
> > ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
> > i++;
> > }
> >
> > But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
> >
> > Thanks for pointing,
> >
> > --
> > Ladislav DANKO
> >
> >
> >
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: mountSharedResource() on huge amount of images
Posted by Bas Gooren <ba...@iswd.nl>.
The general idea is to mount a single handler, which takes the filename
from the url.
There is no reason to mount all images by such a handler one-by-one.
Bas
Op 10-3-2011 23:01, Ladislav DANKO schreef:
> Hi all,
>
> what is the recommended way to mount huge amount of an images (thousands)
> in app? Does mountSharedResource() has any bottleneck? Simplified code look
> like:
>
> Folder folder = ((Start) Application.get()).getUploadFolder();
> File[] files = folder.getFiles();
> List<File> lList = Arrays.asList(files);
> Collections.sort(lList);
> int i = 0;
> Iterator<File> iterator = lList.iterator();
> while(iterator.hasNext())
> {
> iterator.next();
> String fileName = lList.get(i).getName();
> mountSharedResource("/images/" + fileName, new
> ResourceReference(Images.class, fileName).getSharedResourceKey());
> i++;
> }
>
> But what if in folder is for example 100.000 photos?
>
> Thanks for pointing,
>
> --
> Ladislav DANKO
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>