Image Handler 2 (for ZC v1.3.8 ONLY) Support

And criticism is not an issue at all.. (never was) However the MANNER in which it's handled can be conducted without name calling and accusations.. Doesn't matter whether or not this is commercial software or not.. There's something to be said for HOW problems are presented or issues are brought to the table. In an open source environment it's especially important since all of the work here is done on a volunteer basis. no reason why issues cannot be presented in a constructive manner..

I simply posted my observations in a "medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas" of what I observed. It's called agreeing to disagree.. We are all after the same thing, but it's presumptuous to assume that not agreeing with someone is a lowering of standards or otherwise from anyone..

tpeck:

Don't wish to rain on your love-fest parade, but we who criticize are also a major positive influence for the good of these projects (despite getting bashed regularly - not just IE2).

I wish that free project "volunteers" truly understood this - all too often, the type of comments which commercial interests learn to tolerate (and seriously learn from) are scorned in these forums; to everyone's detriment IMHO.

Please - it is a forum (looking the word up on Google: a medium for open discussion or voicing of ideas) and as such, you do the project a disservice if you do not accept and learn from criticism.

I re-read the last few pages and saw no finger-pointing or insults - except from those who should know better.

That said, volunteers on this site do a good job, but that does not mean standards - of any kind - should be lowered.

Finger-pointing? Name-calling? Accusations? Insults? Are we referring to the same thread? Why do you write such things?

I can't find a shred of evidence for any of this.

tpeck:

Finger-pointing? Name-calling? Accusations? Insults? Are we referring to the same thread? Why do you write such things?

I can't find a shred of evidence for any of this.I write such things, because just like you you expressed the opinion that "all too often, the type of comments which commercial interests learn to tolerate (and seriously learn from) are scorned in these forums; to everyone's detriment IMHO", what I wrote is MY opinion.. You clearly do not agree.. So again we will have to simply agree to disagree.. That should be okay right??

Attempting to address recent security concerns.
In my Linux development server, setting the images and the bmz_cache to 755 will not work, simply because "other", in this case PHP, is not allowed to write to those folders.
So I set them to 777 and happily type away.
When I'm done I FTP folders and files as is to the production server.
But when I look at the permissions in the production server they are set to 755 and they work!
How come?
Well, turns out that the production server runs PHP as FastCGI with Apache mod_suexec installed.
The server automatically changes permissions and lets the magic of the Apache configuration work.
Some excellent webhosts also run PHP with mod_suphp, which does pretty much the same thing.
As you may have surmised, in Unix/Linux jargon "su" stands for "superuser" or root.
These programs allow for the execution of scripts as the user, and the user is allowed to write (permission 7).
I don't need to install this on my development server for obvious reasons.
Just to be on top of the paranoia, DV has modified the file that created these folders with 777 permissions to 755.
If you guys use a development server (strongly recommended), please be aware of the issue, just chmod recursively those folders to 777 (if needs be) and fear not.
As DrByte explained, this issue is mostly the webhost's responsibility and not a flaw in IH2.
Sure enough, anything is hackable, given enough time a consumated hacker can break into any system.
The only way to be protected is to tighten your defenses and not be interesting, because hackers don't have time to spend into breaking into a site that is not interesting and has strong defenses, they will simply move on.
And this has been said by Rasmus Lerdorf, creator of PHP.
Look at the Bank of America example, do you think their folders were set to 777?
So, does IH2 make your site more vulnerable, even if in its original inception it set images and bmz_cache to 777?
Certainly not, not more vulnerable than any other mod, depending on the seriousness of your webhost.
Is 777 permissions a security issue?
It used to be, hardly any more.
So, what can we do with support tickets that declare that if folders are set to 777, there is a vulnerability?
Obviously the answer was given out of context, and since they are in electronic format cannot be used as toilet paper.
More info here:
http://www.suphp.org/Home.html
http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.0//mod/mod_suexec.html
or simply Google these terms.
What is hilarious about all this is that this whole issue has been raised by a guy who:

1. Does not use IH2, so has never experienced a problem with it.
2. Thinks his comments are worthwhile, and wants to be thanked for his contribution.
   Sorry to say, I cannot thank a potty-mouthed drunken hooligan for his worthless rants.
   I have now to test the new /includes/modules/additional_images.php, otherwise DV will bite my ######.

I wrote to you personally to apologise for any offence I may have unintentionally caused with what I considered to be general comments. You seemed to accept and understand this.

A day later you are attacking me - and others I presume - and, although I don't take offence easily, this time I am offended, your opinions notwithstanding.

If you don't understand why, there's little I can do to change that.

I thank you for your help and effort helping me with my IH2 problems, but at present I won't be recommending it to others until the filenaming issue is either eliminated or flagged, and - at the very least - our concerns are treated with more respect.

If this was a commercial project you would be receiving a great deal more flak than you have been getting, and you wouldn't be expecting us to help fix things either - nor would you be able to respond offensively as you have done.

We are all volunteers here and to suggest - no state - that our responses (the ones that you dislike) are less than helpful, even though we also put in many hours of work to help solve issues which other software dealt with last century, well, it's plain wrong.

Sorry, I don't agree to disagree, I'm just offended.

tpeck:

I won't be recommending it to others until the filenaming issue is either eliminated or flagged, and - at the very least - our concerns are treated with more respect.
Sorry to hear that you are so easily offended, maybe you should get a tougher skin when posting in a forum?
File naming has been addressed thousands of times in this thread, and we cannot put everything in the readme, people don't read it, short as it is.
If you recommend IH2 or not, is of no concern to me (not speaking for anybody else).
I only care if it works for me, and believe me it does.

Easily offended?

You mean it's OK for a poster to accuse another of finger-pointing, name-calling, accusations and being insulting, but it's not OK to be offended by this? Why not check out the rules of just about all forums in existence including this one?

Perhaps you are right; someone who posts as you do is unlikely to understand (potty-mouthed? Where?)

we cannot put everything in the readme, people don't read it, short as it is

What complete balderdash.

So I've heard back from all but only 2 testers.. Based on this I will plan for this weekend to submit the new IH2 code to the downloads section.

FYI, we are going to make some quick checks to make sure we account for 1.3.9e compatibility. Most notably (as was pointed out a day back) the changes in the includes/modules/YOUR_TEMPLATE/additional_images.php file. So far even without the 1.3.9e changes, the Rev8c package still works on a 1.3.9e site..

tpeck:

potty-mouthed? Where?
I was not referring to you, but to the guy who insulted a lady like DV.

I don't want to buy into another man's argument - I have enough problems trying to get you to understand my own - but I do understand that chap's frustration, whether or not he is right or wrong.

If you have ever had your server hacked you will know what I mean (and, no, it wasn't my fault at all). He is perfectly right not to install a program that may compromise his security - and still has the right to discuss the add-on.

I'm no security buff, but given that you write the filenaming issue has been referred to thousands of times in this thread, and you don't therefore think it useful enough to refer to it in a readme file; well, even taking into account your propensity for exaggeration, the illogic of your reasoning tends to make me sympathetic to another poster meeting with similar defensiveness.

When customers write to me with problems, the first thing I try to do is make them feel comfortable - that isn't happening here.

You seem to be addressing some of these server concerns in the update so he wasn't exactly wrong, was he? And neither I believe am I. I don't claim to be an expert - or even right - but even Microsoft appears to have addressed bracket filename issues with Excel 97 in the year 2000.

I politely suggest you are on the wrong track in the communication stakes if you think that having thousands of people write in about filenaming issues means you don't have a problem or an obligation to flag this in the readme file. Or perhaps you would like to give me back the day I wasted on this.

No, but it works for you as you say, so why care?

A tip in article 58 in the Tutorials/FAQ section does advise not using certain symbols in image filenames.

TIPS
It is wise to NOT use the following symbols in your image filenames: + [ ] $ ' " \ / ()

Also zen_href_link('', '', 'NONSSL') is not unique to IH2, it is used throughout Zen Cart in various files.

@Diva

One small thing I have noticed with 8c that doesn't break anything per se, but will send a newbie scampering to claim bug.

I am speaking of 1.3.9e new install with no mods. In the 8c load, there is no style_imagehover.css loaded to the classic template. I know that template customization should be done elsewhere but we see sites every day that are modified using classic.

For some reason, IH2 will not work correctly using the 1.3.9e classic template without the style_imagehover.css in the classic/css folder. The install goes smoothly, but a hover over the image results in a shifting down of the entire site. It shifts the height of the image that IH2 is wanting to display. This jump moves the image you were hovering over down as well so that the larger image does not appear anywhere on the page. The user is left with a large blank area running the width of the page and above the header.

If you move the cursor back down to the image, its larger version shows up in the upper left corner of the browser.

If the user doesn't think to move the cursor, they will only see the shift and no larger image. This could create a lot of false bug reports.

Seems simple enough to add classic to the templates folder and style_imagehover.css in the css folder.

Hopefully I've explained this well enough that someone else can verify.

THANX for all your team's work.

tpeck:

you don't therefore think it useful enough to refer to it in a readme file
In fact I have recommended that DV include a line in the readme about avoiding special characters.
I think that a one-liner is enough to address the issue.
Regarding the chap that feels entitled to write hogwash about a contrib he doesn't use: I also have the right to describe his rants as what they are.

tpeck:

You seem to be addressing some of these server concerns in the update so he wasn't exactly wrong, was he?
Wondering if you can read at all...

...meaning?

Originally Posted by DivaVocals...

This version should fix the following issues:
Watermarks on large additional images
Issues with some hosting configurations not setting the file permissions of the bmz_cache child folders correctly

In fact I have recommended that DV include a line in the readme about avoiding special characters.
I think that a one-liner is enough to address the issue.

Haven't I been saying this all along?

Wondering what your problem really is.

Why not be helpful without the attitude, like clydejones?

You are correct. There is no specific "classic" template folder at all in the Rev8c fileset (as in other mods). There is however an includes/templates/YOUR_TEMPLATE folder, and clear instructions in the readme to rename the YOUR_TEMPLATES folder to the same name as the template folder. This would apply to those using the classic template as well. There are lots of other mods that do not have a specific "classic" template folder, and simply require that those using the classic template rename any template specific folder for the mod to "classic".

From the readme

Rename the includes/templates/YOUR_TEMPLATE folder to your template name.IH2 will not work correctly for ANY template without the proper CSS or JS files in place. This isn't an "issue" that applies to those using the classic template.
dbltoe:

@Diva

One small thing I have noticed with 8c that doesn't break anything per se, but will send a newbie scampering to claim bug.

I am speaking of 1.3.9e new install with no mods. In the 8c load, there is no style_imagehover.css loaded to the classic template. I know that template customization should be done elsewhere but we see sites every day that are modified using classic.

For some reason, IH2 will not work correctly using the 1.3.9e classic template without the style_imagehover.css in the classic/css folder. The install goes smoothly, but a hover over the image results in a shifting down of the entire site. It shifts the height of the image that IH2 is wanting to display. This jump moves the image you were hovering over down as well so that the larger image does not appear anywhere on the page. The user is left with a large blank area running the width of the page and above the header.

If you move the cursor back down to the image, its larger version shows up in the upper left corner of the browser.

If the user doesn't think to move the cursor, they will only see the shift and no larger image. This could create a lot of false bug reports.

Seems simple enough to add classic to the templates folder and style_imagehover.css in the css folder.

Hopefully I've explained this well enough that someone else can verify.

THANX for all your team's work.

Exactly.. And there are COUNTLESS articles on the internet that say the same. In fact I'm fairly certain that the error that crops up from the improper naming of image files would be an issue with additional images even if IH2 was NOT installed.

Ckosloff and I talked it over, and as he indicated we did add the same line from the Zen FAQ to the IH2 readme. ckosloff is right though.. The readme is already super long and though it contains lots of good information, it's is not read fully as is. We will still have those who have not read the readme or the Zen Cart FAQ who will continue to use special characters in their image file names, and will run smack dab into the additional images error.

Additionally I am of the opinion that "fixing" the IH2 code to allow for these symbols to be used in files names is an inherently BAD idea. Perhaps some of the developers who post here could weigh in on this thought.

clydejones:

A tip in article 58 in the Tutorials/FAQ section does advise not using certain symbols in image filenames.

It is wise to NOT use the following symbols in your image filenames: ** + [ ] $ ' " \ / ()**

Indeed.. The error that is caused by this incorrect naming convention is NOT unique to IH2 at all.. It has cropped up in other places as well..

clydejones:

Also zen_href_link('', '', 'NONSSL') is not unique to IH2, it is used throughout Zen Cart in various files.

The readme is already super long and though it contains lots of good information, it's is not read fully as is. We will still have those who have not read the readme or the Zen Cart FAQ who will continue to use special characters in their image file names, and will run smack dab into the additional images error.

Well, yes, that's a pretty safe bet. No readme file is ever read in full by all.

But how is this supposed to obviate your need to write a Known Issues paragraph to help those who DO read help files?

Or are we supposed to miraculously come upon the information bedded deep in a Zencart FAQ file?

and as he indicated we did add the same line from the Zen FAQ to the IH2 readme

OK, well I missed it. Please show me where it was added. (BTW, this totally contradicts what Ckosloff wrote earlier in post #5581.)

tpeck:

Well, yes, that's a pretty safe bet. No readme file is ever read in full by all.

But how is this supposed to obviate your need to write a Known Issues paragraph to help those who DO read help files?

Or are we supposed to miraculously come upon the information bedded deep in a Zencart FAQ file?

OK, well I missed it. Please show me where it was added. (BTW, this totally contradicts what Ckosloff wrote earlier in post #5581.)

I'd think that it is/will be in rev8c when it is released.

tpeck:

Why not be helpful without the attitude, like clydejones?

I totally agree, it stops me coming here and taking part because i run across people who talk down to me or treat me as inferior, its a sort of arrogance which is very off putting, he even says he only cares if it works for him, i thought the whole point of this was to try and help people, its comments like that which are very pompous and disagreeable and they tend to stoke anger rather than an atmosphere where people are on the same page.

Thats really all i have to say, i find it a little off putting when people give me short and to my mind arrogant and we know best so shut the **** up replies, i can see others think the same but are often put off from saying anything.

Yes it's great people are working on image handler and testing it but i wish some of you would reply in a kinder tone.