On 7/20/10 8:08 PM, Tim Starling wrote:
The Firefogg chunking
protocol itself is poorly thought-out and buggy, it's not the sort of
thing you'd want to use by choice, with a non-Firefogg client.
What in your view would a better version look like?
The PLupload protocol seems quite similar. I might be missing some
subtle difference.
I'd still be
more comfortable promoting better-studied client-side extensions, if
we have to promote a client-side extension at all.
I don't think we should be relying on extensions per se. Firefogg does
do some neat things nothing else does, like converting video formats.
But it's never going to be installed by a larger percentage of our users.
As far as making uploads generally easier, PLupload's approach is way
more generic since it abstracts away the "helper" technologies. It will
work out of the box for maybe >99% of the web and provides a path to
eventually transitioning to pure JS solutions. It's a really interesting
approach and the design looks very clean. I wish I'd known about it
before I started this project.
That said, it went public in early 2010, and a quick visit to its forums
will show that it's not yet bug-free software either.
Anyway, thanks for the URL. We've gone the free software purist route
with our uploader, but we may yet learn something from PLuploader or
incorporate some of what it does.
--
Neil Kandalgaonkar |) <neilk(a)wikimedia.org>