Comments on: File_Archive http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/ News, opinion, and fresh thinking for web developers and designers. The official podcast of sitepoint.com. Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:23:27 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Carter http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-8321 Carter Sat, 27 Aug 2005 05:08:21 +0000 640015690#comment-8321 I doubt there are many people that could put together a quality compression library anywhere close to the time.By the time you spent looking for a <a href="http://myswahili.info" rel="nofollow">solution</a>, you could have started to script your on solution, and proberly got a fair bit of it done. Nice blog.I read some of you're articles and they are really nice. I doubt there are many people that could put together a quality compression library anywhere close to the time.By the time you spent looking for a solution, you could have started to script your on solution, and proberly got a fair bit of it done.

Nice blog.I read some of you’re articles and they are really nice.

]]> By: Robert Douglass http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-8294 Robert Douglass Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:53:53 +0000 640015690#comment-8294 The documentation for the File_Archive package is horrible and incomplete. Thanks for the tutorial; I doubt that any but the most dedicated developers will have success using any of the package's features beyond the toy code in the tutorial and here. The documentation for the File_Archive package is horrible and incomplete. Thanks for the tutorial; I doubt that any but the most dedicated developers will have success using any of the package’s features beyond the toy code in the tutorial and here.

]]> By: Dr Livingston http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2360 Dr Livingston Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2360 <p>> I am a strong believer in reusing code that is made available in libraries rather than writing it myself. It saves a lot of time!</p> <p>Well.. Well... Well...</p> <p>> I looked in a lot of places and tried several classes - they worked, but not fully. For example, there were issues with corrupt zip files, or directories not being maintained.</p> <p>By the time you spent looking for a solution, you could have started to script your on solution, and proberly got a fair bit of it done.</p> <p>I'm all for re-use myself, but only in the sense of script which I've developed myself. With the ammount of script out there that suffers from lack of unit testing, lack of documentation, and a lack of reliable feedback, as a developer, you just cannot depend on it.</p> <p>It's not safe, not from a developers point of view, and certainly not from a business point of view. After reading this blog, for one I wouldn't use your software.</p> <p>I couldn't depend on it. Sorry</p> > I am a strong believer in reusing code that is made available in libraries rather than writing it myself. It saves a lot of time!

Well.. Well… Well…

> I looked in a lot of places and tried several classes – they worked, but not fully. For example, there were issues with corrupt zip files, or directories not being maintained.

By the time you spent looking for a solution, you could have started to script your on solution, and proberly got a fair bit of it done.

I’m all for re-use myself, but only in the sense of script which I’ve developed myself. With the ammount of script out there that suffers from lack of unit testing, lack of documentation, and a lack of reliable feedback, as a developer, you just cannot depend on it.

It’s not safe, not from a developers point of view, and certainly not from a business point of view. After reading this blog, for one I wouldn’t use your software.

I couldn’t depend on it. Sorry

]]> By: Eric.Coleman http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2361 Eric.Coleman Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2361 <p>I don't like the API design that File_Archive has... i think it's terrible and confusing.</p> <p>Ohh weell.. to each his own.</p> <p> - Ric, E</p> I don’t like the API design that File_Archive has… i think it’s terrible and confusing.

Ohh weell.. to each his own.

– Ric, E

]]> By: fsteinel http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2362 fsteinel Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2362 <p>How about support for file level packing, e.g. foo will be foo.cmp and gzcompressed. Usefull for small files without the zip/tar-header overhead.</p> How about support for file level packing, e.g. foo will be foo.cmp and gzcompressed. Usefull for small files without the zip/tar-header overhead.

]]> By: mrsmiley http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2363 mrsmiley Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2363 <p>Dr Livingston, are you saying you wouldn't purchase any software without knowing that every library it used came from a source that lived up to your development standards?</p> Dr Livingston, are you saying you wouldn’t purchase any software without knowing that every library it used came from a source that lived up to your development standards?

]]> By: chrisb http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2364 chrisb Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2364 <p>Dr Livingston, Writing compression code well is a fairly difficult thing to do.. Granted I don't know exactly how good the author is, but I doubt there are many people that could put together a quality compression library anywhere close to the time it takes to research available options...</p> Dr Livingston, Writing compression code well is a fairly difficult thing to do.. Granted I don’t know exactly how good the author is, but I doubt there are many people that could put together a quality compression library anywhere close to the time it takes to research available options…

]]> By: WebDevGuy http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2365 WebDevGuy Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2365 <p>I know this is Off-Topic but it would be GREAT if someone would write a brief tutorial about Pear's FILE_PDF. I find VERY little about - not even enough to get started. Yet I have seen presentations about how great it is.</p> I know this is Off-Topic but it would be GREAT if someone would write a brief tutorial about Pear’s FILE_PDF. I find VERY little about – not even enough to get started. Yet I have seen presentations about how great it is.

]]> By: Octal http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2366 Octal Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2366 <p><blockquote><p>By the time you spent looking for a solution, you could have started to script your on solution, and proberly got a fair bit of it done.</p></blockquote><br /> Not anymore. Thanks to this blog I now know exactly where to go to find what I need.</p> <p><blockquote><p>With the ammount of script out there that suffers from lack of unit testing, lack of documentation, and a lack of reliable feedback, as a developer, you just cannot depend on it.</p></blockquote><br /> I find the PEAR archive to be reliable enough for my needs. I also think the following is a good source of feedback:<br /> <blockquote><p>Not only does it do everything you might need to do with archives, but it is actively developed. I have contributed several bug reports and they are always responded to and fixed quickly - often within hours of reporting. When I started using it, the docs available weren't that great, but they have now been greatly improved and updated.</p></blockquote></p> <p><blockquote><p>After reading this blog, for one I wouldn't use your software.</p></blockquote><br /> Seeing as we're judging people on a post rather than testimonials, customer referrals etc; I wouldn't hire you as a software developer. The time you spend developing your own solution probably equates to more time to develop which means more cost for me.</p>

By the time you spent looking for a solution, you could have started to script your on solution, and proberly got a fair bit of it done.

Not anymore. Thanks to this blog I now know exactly where to go to find what I need.

With the ammount of script out there that suffers from lack of unit testing, lack of documentation, and a lack of reliable feedback, as a developer, you just cannot depend on it.

I find the PEAR archive to be reliable enough for my needs. I also think the following is a good source of feedback:

Not only does it do everything you might need to do with archives, but it is actively developed. I have contributed several bug reports and they are always responded to and fixed quickly – often within hours of reporting. When I started using it, the docs available weren’t that great, but they have now been greatly improved and updated.

After reading this blog, for one I wouldn’t use your software.

Seeing as we’re judging people on a post rather than testimonials, customer referrals etc; I wouldn’t hire you as a software developer. The time you spend developing your own solution probably equates to more time to develop which means more cost for me.

]]> By: OfficeOfTheLaw http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2005/08/06/file_archive/comment-page-1/#comment-2367 OfficeOfTheLaw Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000 640015690#comment-2367 <p>Dr.Livingston,<br /> Are you suggesting that people should not use existing libraries and instead waste their client's time reinventing the wheel?</p> <p>Whether or not File_Archive is designed "properly" is not the issue... it works, and does the job for people who may otherwise spend a good 8 to 12 hours writing their own file archive wrapper with unit tests.</p> <p>Sure, it's nice to write your own, but unfortunately clients tend to be pushy one schedules and time constraints, and all they care about is that the product works. Not to excuse sloppy code, but File_archive is also far from sloppy.</p> Dr.Livingston,
Are you suggesting that people should not use existing libraries and instead waste their client’s time reinventing the wheel?

Whether or not File_Archive is designed “properly” is not the issue… it works, and does the job for people who may otherwise spend a good 8 to 12 hours writing their own file archive wrapper with unit tests.

Sure, it’s nice to write your own, but unfortunately clients tend to be pushy one schedules and time constraints, and all they care about is that the product works. Not to excuse sloppy code, but File_archive is also far from sloppy.

]]>