Does the IMAGEMAN.DLL with the JPG filter work in OI Windows? If so, how? Any other suggestions on how to display JPG images would be appreciated

For one of our customers we actually store JPG images into an LH table. To display an image we simply set the BITMAP property of a bitmap control in a form.

Stefano,

Do you actually store the content of JPG files in database fields?

If so, then you have to store the content in an encoded form to avoid ASCII NULs, @RMs, @FMs and stuff, right? And when you want to display an image in a BITMAP control, you first have to create a file .JPG, decode and write the content to that file, and finally set the BITMAP property? Right?

Isn't it generally a much better idea to store images in image files and just have references (file names) in the database?

- Oystein -

Oysten,

]] Do you actually store the content of JPG files in database fields? ] If so, then you have to store the content in an encoded form to avoid ASCII NULs, @RMs, @FMs and stuff, right? ] And when you want to display an image in a BITMAP control, you first have to create a file .JPG, decode and write the content to that file, and finally set the BITMAP property? Right? ] Isn't it generally a much better idea to store images in image files and just have references (file names) in the database? «

It might be a better idea, but unfortunately most (all?) operating systems limit the number of files, any kind, you can store on a harddisk…

Stefano

Stefano,

]] Do you actually store the content of JPG files in database fields?

] Yes we do.

]] If so, then you have to store the content in an encoded form to avoid ASCII NULs, @RMs, @FMs and stuff, right?

] We do not encode the data, we just put the image in the last field of each record. We've several thousands images in the database so far, and everything works fine.

Strange. I'd thought the bytes of a JPG file could be any value, and the abovementioned characters could certainly destroy the database.

]] Isn't it generally a much better idea to store images in image files and just have references (file names) in the database?

] It might be a better idea, but unfortunately most (all?) operating systems limit the number of files, any kind, you can store on a harddisk…

Well, your database is also on the harddisk. But I assume you mean you can pack the data tighter in the database because you get rid of the overhead associated with each file. Since each file uses a whole number of blocks, even very small or highly compressed images take a lot of space.

And of course one might have other reasons for storing the images in the database, like one can have more sophisticated control of the users' access to the images.

- Oystein -

View this thread on the Works forum...