Reply to: Cool Wall

[TheBigYinJames]

http://www.bampotty.com/coolwall/index.pl

I've added a picture find feature that saves you going to search for images, it does it for you.

[TheBigYinJames]

There's something funky going on in your mouseup handler: if I go to a pic, mousedown, and mouseup without moving, the image frame is moved 5 pixels up and 10 pixels left. If I drag, a similar shift left and up from the drag end position is seen upon drop, presumably by the same amount.

Yeh it's a rounding error. When you move an image, it does a percentage calculation across the width and height of the screen. This is so it still spreads all the images out over whatever screen width and height you view the wall on. If I used absolute pixel positions, different screen sizes would mess it up. Since I store the percentages as integers, you're always going to get a few pixels worth of rounding.

Unfortunately it does always seem to be in the upwards/leftwards direction (due to truncation rather than rounding, I suppose) I'll look into it when I'm at ClientCo next week

[NickFitz]

There's something funky going on in your mouseup handler: if I go to a pic, mousedown, and mouseup without moving, the image frame is moved 5 pixels up and 10 pixels left. If I drag, a similar shift left and up from the drag end position is seen upon drop, presumably by the same amount.

On one occasion it seemed that it moved up 6 pixels, not 5, which might imply a rounding error somewhere. Not sure though...

Oh, this was in Safari 3 and Firefox 2 on OS X, BTW.

[Advocate]

I should set up a "Clarkson's Tight Jeans' wall with categories ranging from "gonad squashing" to "tent flapping"

Who's going to search for those pictures?

[TheBigYinJames]

Post it in, Clarkson can use it in his "I was on the web and i found THIS.." link.

I should set up a "Clarkson's Tight Jeans' wall with categories ranging from "gonad squashing" to "tent flapping"

[Advocate]

Post it in, Clarkson can use it in his "I was on the web and i found THIS.." link.

[TheBigYinJames]

Thats quite good fun that!

You should send a link to clarkson!

With a bit of work I'm sure you could get it put on the Top Gear page of the bbc website.

May need parental control though!

Like a lot of my side projects, I get bored of them after a while - when they don't make me any money But maybe the Beeb would want it for the Top Gear website.

[Money Money Money]

Thats quite good fun that!

You should send a link to clarkson!

With a bit of work I'm sure you could get it put on the Top Gear page of the bbc website.

May need parental control though!

[TheBigYinJames]

In the long run it might be best to have the server retrieve pics, thumbnail them to a suitable size, and serve them yourself rather than deep-linking - although this could end up using a fair bit of space. Then there's copyright issues...

Yes, I see you added a huge ape pic. I was against storing the images for all the reasons you gave above, but mostly space and bandwidth from my webserver.

My advice on the 'add new pic' dialogue is to use images from Google's image cache of results, since they are dinky enough to fit nicely on the page.

I will look at resizing the image on the fly, though.

[NickFitz]

You might want to look into limiting the size of pictures - a bit of CSS specifying max-width and max-height would probably be good enough for modern browsers (though not IE6) although it could mess up aspect ratios in certain circumstances - maybe inspecting the image dimensions and adding inline width and height attributes to the image element would be better (though don't tell the WaSP I said that).

In the long run it might be best to have the server retrieve pics, thumbnail them to a suitable size, and serve them yourself rather than deep-linking - although this could end up using a fair bit of space. Then there's copyright issues...

[TheBigYinJames]

Remember, JavaScript functions are objects....[snip].

Ta, I'll look into it. I just cobbled together bits of AJAX script that I knew were working, it's very much a hash job.

[TheBigYinJames]

Looks good, although Seven of Nine and Number 6 are hotter than indicated

If I don't get bored with it, I was going to add a "make me a version of this" so you could drag and drop them where you want, and then be able to flick back and forward between theirs and yours.

At the moment, you can only drag photos around on walls you create yourself (after registering + logging in)

[NickFitz]

Remember, JavaScript functions are objects. So if you change

function sendData(theData)
{
    ajaxFunction('callbacks.pl',theData,'receiveData');
}

to

function sendData(theData)
{
    ajaxFunction('callbacks.pl',theData,receiveData); // removed quotes on last argument
}

then

 xmlHttp.onreadystatechange=function()
  {
    if(xmlHttp.readyState==4)
    {
      eval(AJAXreceivingFunction + "('" + xmlHttp.responseText.replace(/'/gi,"\'") + "')");
    }
  }

can be replaced with

 xmlHttp.onreadystatechange=function()
  {
    if(xmlHttp.readyState==4)
    {
      AJAXreceivingFunction(xmlHttp.responseText.replace(/'/gi,"\'")); // no eval
    }
  }

removing the need for an "eval", which is a Good Thing - "eval" actually has to kick off a whole new script engine instance, initialise it, and pass it the string to be parsed and executed, whereas a function reference can merely be executed using ( [which is actually defined in the language spec as the function invocation operator IIRC].

Check out Eric Lippert's post Eval is Evil, Part One for more details - he worked on the Microsoft scripting engines when they were first developed about ten years ago, and the execution model remains the same.

[voodooflux]

Looks good, although Seven of Nine and Number 6 are hotter than indicated

[Bear]

Yeh I probably should point out it won't work on screens the size of postage stamps.

Thanks for letting me know