Why doing a complete new work?
Brought to you by:
digi-fx
Menu
▾
▴
Hi,
good idea with the gallery. But why a complete new script?
At the moment I'm using Atomic Photo Album (http://www.ece.fr/~charissi/atomic/) which has some nice features.
User login, comments for any foto, hit counter.
You can hve a look how it looks at http://www.techno-bonn.de/fotoalbum/index.php
Maybe you should contact the author and rework his script? This would IMHO be faster than a rewrite.
Well, to tell you the truth, I was hired to develop this gallery plug-in for phpWebSite. After initial development, permission was given to open-source the code. This isn't a rewrite, but a whole new application custom built to my client's specifications. Is Atomic Photo Album compatible with phpWebSite as a plug-in?
After install, I decided that this gallery has two shortcomings that make it a bad choice, in my opinion:
1. Every image must be uploaded. If Gal does not like something you entered ( the size of the thumbnail ) then you get an error and have to start over.
2. Once an image is uploaded, you can't replace it. The edit function only allows you to change the description. To replace the image, you have to delete and start over.
3. It changes the name of all your pictures, so instead of having 'lake-view.jpg', you get '1.jpg' There really is no reason for this that I can see.
Well, I want gallery software that lets me ftp the images to the server, and then the server examines my files and lets me comment each one. It should also let me include an image and its description in more than one gallery.
1. I find uploaded easier than FTP'ing images and it's not really server dependent. The error checking is necessary to ensure image data only, not exe's or viruses.
2. Personally, I don't see a need for this when you can delete the image.
3. A standardized naming scheme makes sure images with the same name don't get overwritten.
1. Upload is great, but it is not an either/or choice. FTP is faster. Because the original file names are discarded in Gallery, you can't add ftp ability, because you can't map the original file name to the 999.jpg unique name.
Error checking is good, but the user should never have to re-enter everything from scratch when an error is encountered. You should be able to edit the info you submitted and try again.
2. Deleting and replacing the image also loses your descriptions. You can't link from a foreign program to the image, because the number will change Was: 99.jpg, now 195.jpg
3. A standardized naming scheme can be created by appending a number to the uploaded file name. This way you don't lose information important to the user. lake_view.jpg becomes lake_view_991.jpg. Presto, no lost information.
I don't mean to be unfairly hard on your effort, but it is important to honestly state the shortcomings, or code will not improve.
I have installed the Atomic code mentioned by the previous poster. I am also working with the developer to enhance this code. It is not a PHP plugin yet, but could be. It allows FTP, keeps the original file names, allows unlimited galleries and unlimited comments.
It does not have a search function or an upload function yet, and the user interace is too dark for my tastes (Black with silver text) I have modified mine to whit background/black text.
You can see my vesion of Atomic at
http://www.treumann.com/pix
I thank you for your suggestions and I will use them to improve the plug-in, but by no means is the plug-in unusable. I don't appreciate your choice of wording also. It appears you are totally against my efforts. Heck, I don't even use the plug-in on any of my web sites.
oh,yes, in case users reading this post didn't see bobtreu's attempts to sabotage phpgallery, go here:
http://sourceforge.net/forum/message.php?msg_id=248810
If you look at my version of Atomic, at
http://www.treumann.com/pix
Look at the album called "Ancestors". It is the only one with a thumbnail. Thumbnails are not required by Atomic, which is another nice feature.
There is also a script included to generate thumbs. I haven't tried it.
Where is it? The link does not work.
Though "bobtreu" has excellent comments for improving the phpgallery plug-in, I think it's in poor taste to announce to the SourceForge community to not use the PHPgallery plug-in as it does not meet "his" standards (especially in poor taste since he's involved with a competing gallery application that cannot as of yet claim plug-in status). We always appreciate suggestions as to how to improve apps, but rarely appreciate a concerted effort by someone seeking to get rid of the competition. I use phpgallery all the time, and though it has some short comings - I was the one who asked it to be coded in the first place - it works fine for me. Just my .02 worth. I look forward to the next version of phpgallery which will undoubtably contain many improvements.
HR
I just want to thank Harry for his work on PHPWS Gallery. I've just setup a 0.8.0 PHPWS and was happy to find that Gal 1.2 (currently available via CVS) installed perfectly. The plugin suits my purposes well - building a gallery slowly (1-3 images per week) from membership submissions.
We appreciate your nice comments and because of this we strive to offer a better package. Just thought I'd clarify something for you though:
Harry came up with the idea for the plug-in, but I developed the code for it. ;-) And now Jeremy is throwing in a few additions of his own.