Simple Gallery: Source or No Source?

Perhaps there is a way where you can make this a provider interface and have the simple gallery dll open source and a separate dll provider also open source for the current upload functionality in simple gallery.

And then create a closed source provider for the telerik upload control that can substitute for the default implementation.

I use Teleik all the time as well. They are great controls. Is there a way for you to embed their DLL's in your source where they are locked to your module (so 98% source) make sense?

A few points from me:

I always consider how a function fits within the entire user experience for the client who is tasked with managing content on a site.

If the person has to learn how to resize and compress images in one manner for other modules such as Text/HTML(News Articles), then providing another method to do these things in one module only adds another thing they have to be trained up in.. even if it does make it easier for that one module.
If there's a way that the upload and resize functionality can be utilised across the entire user experience then it's highly valuable. If not, then it's cool, but of lesser value.

As for the source.. personally I always grab the source of each module I install... not because I'd know how to do anything with it, but because even developers can get hit by buses and I need to be able to provide some sort of ongoing development path to my customers, even if that means finding someone else who can then carry out the work using the source.

And a different point about the control... does it let one continue to make use of the quality resizing option or does it revert us back to the generic one. That would certainly be a killer for me.

Regarding the use of Flash... I consider that to be a reasonably safe standard to support and am fine if modules make use of it.

Regards,
Rob

I always get the source when i can and if using the telerik control meant no source for simple gallery, then i would say use one of the other controls.

I don't think there would be many users without flash, so either control would be fine.

In most cases I would prefer the source as well, but it is not a deal breaker for me. In this case, if you used a dll for telerik but still provided the rest of the source I think it would be a reasonable compromise.
I would also add that I have confidence in the ongoing existence of Telerik which relieves some of the need for me regarding the source.

Scott, you should take a look at the upload control that Nik Kalyani uses in his excellent Speerio File Manager module. See http://www.speerio.net. The control is from Mediachase (http://www.mediachase.com) called File Uploader. I've used this control in some government work. And some smart guy should use their excellent calendar control in a DNN module.

R,

TPM

Thanks for the link, the problem I have is what to do with the source when including a component like this, obviously that section of the code could not be distributed, and another developer could not test the module without a license (using a compiled assembly)..

I've emailed Nik to find out how he bundles it with his source.

I think you should definatley consider using telerik file upload control, its a great control and why would people need the upload control source anyway?

I'm all for improvements in uploading and resizing etc... but I still believe these improvements need to be made at the core rather than on the fringes. File uploading is after all a task common to most modules.
I'm having endless issues with the way every module has different systems to carry out these same tasks.

Having to teach and document 6 different methods for a customer to get images and files onto their webpages is just nuts.

It's defeating the whole point of having an integrated framework when the end-user is not the person who benefits.

So, whatever system is best.. can that be promoted and discussed with the Core team?