![]() ImageRanger has also tags and Face Detection and Recognition. Apple Photo (which I feel has its own challenges with how convoluted its image directories are e.g). The image viewing interface itself is okay although it might not be as smooth as e.g. I really like the import function that gets rid of duplicates (dedupes) and that put files into directories (video, photos, etc) and year/months based on how you have set up the import function. One other thing to note: The application is very vulnerable to Cross-Site Scripting.Īnother (paid) solution is (don't have anything to do with them, but installed it for my father). ![]() For example, does "use" of the app include customization? What type of customization is possible and accepted? If you allow some customization, you'd need to be careful to spell out explicitly that people can't just edit the PHP and remove the nag, etc. I would also warn you, having seen this happen to a friend's project, the absence of any robust license text inside the package and/or spelled out on the website is going to give you some headaches. Plus they work on an otherwise disconnected network, do not subject users to potential tracking, etc. There's loads of on-premise enterprise apps that do not load data from CDNs and have much more convoluted user interfaces. Setting that aside though, the density of the interface is kind of irrelevant to where the CSS and JS are hosted. Your app is, as you noted, not single-file. There's a mid-sized vocal crowd of self-hosters here on HN and from my own observation a tendency to prefer control over these sorts of things. You're responding from the point of view of the person I am sharing my photos with, whereas most of the respondents are responding from the point of view of the me, the guy who is gonna actually use this app. I get the rest of the points you're making but I think the flak you're getting is largely about what you consider the "user" here. I have noted comments about license info being unclear, thanks.įurthermore, it was INTENDED BY DESIGN to load all JS/CSS from CDN, because ultimately it improves the user-experience, and makes it plausible to make an app like this wrapped into a single index.php file. There are loads of other free apps, and if you can't see any difference, then your choice is easy. It's hardly worthwhile in the first place. Those who expect apps like this to be entirely free with updates and support, are living in dream land. If you want to remove the nag and use it as a file manager, license is required. We will NOT be adding all JS/CSS directly into the index.php file.Ībout license, as stated on the website, you can use it as a file viewer for free (with the nag). ![]() There will be a future release where you can assign all scripts/css to be loaded from local path, but then of course all these files will need to be installed alongside Files app index.php. If this does not suit you, nobody has any problem with that.ĭoes anyone have any examples of any other single-file app with a comprehensive interface like Files app that is entirely self-contained? For functional reasons, benefiting the vast majority who do not care how/where the JS/CSS is loaded from, JS and CSS files are therefore served from CDN. ![]() Furthermore, some plugins are served on-demand, for example when browser needs a "polyfill" or for specific features. JS/CSS is loaded from CDN service, with multi-level redundancy (Amazon, Cloudfront, Cloudflare), and will load faster and cache more effectively than anything served from within the index.php app on your own server. PHP is only 10% of the codebase, and it would bloat the file to insane dimensions and make it difficult to maintain. It's not reasonable to add ALL Javascript/CSS directly into the index.php file. Furthermore, it was INTENDED BY DESIGN to load all JS/CSS from CDN, because ultimately it improves the user-experience, and makes it plausible to make an app like this wrapped into a single index.php file. From an operational perspective, there is only one file to download/move/install, and from a functional perspective for the vast majority, it will be viewed in browser with an active internet connection. That is of course a correct observation, and this is already noted on the website. A lot of negative comments, which I don't have a problem with, but I can perhaps clarify a few things.Ībout Files app not being "single file" because it loads JS/CSS resources from the CDN (internet). Someone notified me that the app had been posted here.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |