Clodoaldo wrote:
> 5 Jan 2007 06:59:18 -0800, imageguy <imageguy1206@gmail.com>:
> >
> > I think I know the answer,
>
> If you know the answer please tell it as I have read some discussions
> on the web and although I have decided on a solution I'm still not
> sure about the best answer, if there is a best answer after all.
Sorry, didn't mean to sound like and expert on this, I am actually
quite a newbie. From all of the discussions I have read and even the
ones in this thread, including your own comments below, it would seem
that to store the files in the files system you need some sort of
application erver or :middleware - like a webserver - to handle the
retreiving and serving of the files.
My organization is developing a commercial application for "document
tracking". It is not a Browser application, but rather a more
traditional "windows" thick client app.
At the present time we do not intend to deploy any sort of "application
server" - web server, ftp server, and not all of the workstations will
have access to a consistent network share.
So in this case, it is my understanding that our only real choice is to
store the documents and images in the database itself.
... unless someone knows of a postgresql function that would allow us
to "server" the file from the filesystem via the dbserver ??
>
> > but if you don't have an "application
> > server" - ie a webserver, etc,
>
> Yes I have an application server, the Apache server.
>
> > and many of the workstations/clients
> > that need access to the images but may not have access to a network
> > share,
>
> network share? I don't understand. The images will be loaded by html
> pages with the img tag like in <img
> src="http://domain.com/images/xxx.jpg">
>
> > isn't the database the only choice ?
>
> No. It is one of the choices. The other is to store the images in the
> file system, in a directory readable by Apache.
See above. WE are trying to reduce the dependancies on other
applications to ensure a simple deployment of the application.
