ID |
Date |
Icon |
Author |
Author Email |
Category |
OS |
ELOG Version |
Subject |
1623
|
Tue Jan 24 14:39:21 2006 |
| Bertram Metz | bmetz@sbs.com | Bug report | Linux | V2.6.0-bet | Re: Attachments in duplicated entries |
Stefan Ritt wrote: |
Bertram Metz wrote: | The duplicate command duplicates the entry text itself, but it does not duplicate attachments. If attachments in a duplicated entry are deleted, the original attachment files are deleted as well and cannot be accessed anymore within the original entry.
My suggestion is to copy the attached files too and to use file names of the copies in the duplicated entry. |
I chaned it such that attachments are removed from the duplicated entry, which was easier to implement. I hope this is ok as well. The change is in SVN revision 1584. |
Yes, that's ok for me.
Thank you very much Stefan.
Best Regards,
Bertram |
66626
|
Mon Nov 23 12:32:14 2009 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | 2.7.7-2266 | Re: Attachments and images of attachments | > Hi Stefan,
>
> I attached a 12 page (22kB) pdf file - no images - to an entry, but elog only converted the first 8 pages to
> images (.png). This is reproducable, i.e. a different small multipage pdf file produced the same number of images.
>
> The size of the pdf file does not seem to be a problem, a single page pdf file with a lot of images in it
> attached as expected.
>
> Is this correct, or a defined limitation?
This is a defined limitation. Sometimes people attach whole books in PDF form to an entry, and you don't want to end up
with hundreds of images cluttering your browser. If you want to see the full document, just load it into your PDF viewer. |
66627
|
Mon Nov 23 13:17:53 2009 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | Linux | 2.7.7-2266 | Re: Attachments and images of attachments | > > Hi Stefan,
> >
> > I attached a 12 page (22kB) pdf file - no images - to an entry, but elog only converted the first 8 pages to
> > images (.png). This is reproducable, i.e. a different small multipage pdf file produced the same number of images.
> >
> > The size of the pdf file does not seem to be a problem, a single page pdf file with a lot of images in it
> > attached as expected.
> >
> > Is this correct, or a defined limitation?
>
> This is a defined limitation. Sometimes people attach whole books in PDF form to an entry, and you don't want to end up
> with hundreds of images cluttering your browser. If you want to see the full document, just load it into your PDF viewer.
Thanks, Stefan (why is this answer down under my name!?)
I couldn't find reference to this in the documentation. In the case I referred to, I'll have to play with the pdf so that
the six pages I actually want displayed are. |
67105
|
Wed Aug 31 15:00:11 2011 |
| Andreas Luedeke | andreas.luedeke@psi.ch | Question | All | 2.9.0-2411 | Re: Attachments (again) | > In my case the original .pdf file is elsewhere, I've no need to have duplicates scatted in various logbooks, and
> while ideally that would also be true of the thumbnail, it is fair enough for this to be stored in each logbook
> where it is required. This removes the issue of how to have an attachment in a different logbook (other than by
> links, which would get rather tiresome to have to keep making).
>
> Anyone any ideas?
If you just want to show a thumbnail of an attachment in a public logbook, then just add a link to it. like
<img src="https://abk.web.psi.ch/tmp/t.png" alt="" />

or in your example you show the thumbnail in the hidden logbook by adding in the text body:
<img src="<your-host-url>/public/110705_235520_whatthis-0.png" alt="" />
Of course the attachment has to be in the public logbook and the link in the hidden one. |
67106
|
Wed Aug 31 15:13:02 2011 |
| Stefan Ritt | stefan.ritt@psi.ch | Question | All | 2.9.0-2411 | Re: Attachments (again) |
Andreas Luedeke wrote: |
> In my case the original .pdf file is elsewhere, I've no need to have duplicates scatted in various logbooks, and
> while ideally that would also be true of the thumbnail, it is fair enough for this to be stored in each logbook
> where it is required. This removes the issue of how to have an attachment in a different logbook (other than by
> links, which would get rather tiresome to have to keep making).
>
> Anyone any ideas?
If you just want to show a thumbnail of an attachment in a public logbook, then just add a link to it. like
<img src="https://abk.web.psi.ch/tmp/t.png" alt="" />

or in your example you show the thumbnail in the hidden logbook by adding in the text body:
<img src="<your-host-url>/public/110705_235520_whatthis-0.png" alt="" />
Of course the attachment has to be in the public logbook and the link in the hidden one.
|
Sure, but that works only from a hidden logbook into a public one, not the other way, but I think this is what David wants. Since the hidden attachment is not accessible from the public logbook, there is no way around that other than physically copy the message, then strip maybe the text. He is concerned about having the same attachment twice on disk, which I cannot fully understand. Even large attachments are maybe 10 or 20 MB, otherwise they take forever to go through your browser. With a modern 1 TB disk these are 50.000 attachments...  |
67107
|
Wed Aug 31 15:20:48 2011 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | All | 2.9.0-2411 | Re: Attachments (again) | Hi Andreas,
>Of course the attachment has to be in the public logbook and the link in the hidden one.
The issue I have is that the attachment is in the hidden logbook, the link would have to be in the
public one...
I'll also look again at putting in the links in the text (normally I use plain encoding, rather than html).
I wondered if there had been some flag for the config file whereby the original file for attachment was
processed by ImageMagick, but not stored, only the .png file(s) stored - or rather, some other way that achieved
the same end. as there is no such flag at present.
For now, anyway, I can attach the documents/pics I want, then go in and delete the 'originals' as saved in the
logbook, leaving just the .png files. But maybe something for the wishlist? |
67109
|
Wed Aug 31 15:29:32 2011 |
| David Pilgram | David.Pilgram@epost.org.uk | Question | All | 2.9.0-2411 | Re: Attachments (again) | Hi Stefan,
>Sure, but that works only from a hidden logbook into a public one, not the other way, but I think this is what
>David wants. Since the hidden attachment is not accessible from the public logbook, there is no way around that
>other than physically copy the message, then strip maybe the text.
(as per my reply to Andreas)
>He is concerned about having the same attachment twice on disk, which I cannot fully understand. Even large
>attachments are maybe 10 or 20 MB, otherwise they take forever to go through your browser. With a modern 1 TB
>disk these are 50.000 attachments
I've not mentioned it, but the entire logbook directory and subdirectories have to squeeze into a memory stick,
along with other data not at issue here. Soon be too much for an 8GB stick, so that a factor of 100 down on
the available memory space.
But I can work with the solution I gave in the reply to Andreas. |
67115
|
Tue Sep 6 12:00:13 2011 |
| Andreas Luedeke | andreas.luedeke@psi.ch | Question | All | 2.9.0-2411 | Re: Attachments (again) | > I wondered if there had been some flag for the config file whereby the original file for attachment was
> processed by ImageMagick, but not stored, only the .png file(s) stored - or rather, some other way that achieved
> the same end. as there is no such flag at present.
>
> For now, anyway, I can attach the documents/pics I want, then go in and delete the 'originals' as saved in the
> logbook, leaving just the .png files. But maybe something for the wishlist?
At least I now understood your problem :-)
You can have a script in your hidden logbook, that processes your attachments with "execute new", create thumbnails
of them (using ImageMagicks "convert") and submit those thumbnails as one additional entry to your public logbook.
But then you would get thumbnails of all attachments of the hidden logbook in the public one, maybe you don't want
that either? If you want them all, this method is more automated. If you just want some, do it as you suggested it.
In my opinion this is a rather exotic feature request :-)
I wonder if there is a second person in the world who could use it? |
|