Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
XP is just a number

RE: RE: RE: Cool CGI File Uploading

by tenatious (Beadle)
on Jun 23, 2000 at 20:29 UTC ( #19619=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to RE: RE: Cool CGI File Uploading
in thread Cool CGI File Uploading

The point of your original post seemed to be that this would make it somehow easier to update a site. Does it? Let's go through the steps for each.

Your way (if I understand you correctly)

  • Start up mini-ftp server
  • Open big-honking browser that can handle multipart encoding
  • Go to URL with file input field
  • click browse, navigate, and select ortype the filename
  • click go (or have it upload onChange or something equally silly)
  • Shut down mini-ftp server

Using ftp from command line

  • change to directory where file resides
  • ftp to your server
  • Enter username, password
  • put file
  • quit

Frankly I don't see a great deal of time saved or a huge improvement in useability. Although it is clever, it seems like it might just be easier and quicker to ftp (or sftp, or scp). And although the risk is slight from a security stand point, it does make me curious whether you've ever forgot to turn out the lights.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
RE: RE: RE: RE: Cool CGI File Uploading
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 23, 2000 at 21:21 UTC
    Oh, and I almost forgot the most important: my machine at work is NOT registered in the DNS, so it is totally impossible to ftp to my university, because the servers there check for DNS registration.

    So... when FTP is completely unavailable, the purpose is more obvious!!!
RE: RE: RE: RE: Cool CGI File Uploading
by Anonymous Monk on Jun 23, 2000 at 21:18 UTC
    Well, I'm sorry, but no. I have to disagree with that.

    First, you have to remember that this file input field is integrated in the update form along with the other update input (text fields), making it a unique updating application to use.

    Now, if you don't have my "live" update CGI, you have to use on top of that the ftp transfer, which, as you describe it, has several steps. For the little server, there is only one click to launch it, and one click to kill it.

    Speedwise, I'm telling you, the file transfer is faster than ftp.

    Turning the lights off? You won't forget that since there is an application running that takes room on your desktop.

    And again, there is no unencrypted password transfered, especially the one of your whole unix account: Security is better than ftp.

    BTW, there is no need for multipart encoding to use a textfield. I am not using, I have no need for it.

      Why did you even post your idea here for peer review if you are going to go defensive everytime someone points at a potential flaw in your plan?

      Some very valid, and note-worthy ideas have been voiced.

      Here is the only circumstance when you should use your method, in my opinion:

      • Unable to ftp to web server machine, whether by name or IP.
      • Unable to open ftp up on a higher order port (not good idea).
      • Unable to email the file to your webserver (don't you have shell access?)
      • Unable to ftp out of the web server (shell access, again?)

      I know that I, for one, would like to know the exact environment where you believe this is warranted.

      Don't get me wrong, it is a cool means to do something, if no other method is available.

      J. J. Horner
      Linux, Perl, Apache, Stronghold, Unix

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Domain Nodelet?
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://19619]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others surveying the Monastery: (4)
As of 2022-10-01 00:48 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?
    I prefer my indexes to start at:

    Results (126 votes). Check out past polls.