I guess I am comparing the creation of a (high quality) thumbnail each time,
against opening a pre-created file of the same size.
I don't _think_ the flash will change things here. It could just as well be
a browser accessing the files. Flash will just be given the urls (whether
that is a handler url or an actual file url is the question). It sounds as
though there isn't any obvious rule saying that using one or the other is
much slower...
A handler removes the headache of trying to manage thumbnails, but would it
be ok to server say 40 images to a single web page. I would have thought so,
but wonder if there is a bottleneck of any sorts here?
JJ
"Mark Rae [MVP]" <ma**@markNOSPAMrae.netwrote in message
news:OG**************@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
"Eliyahu Goldin" <RE**************************@mMvVpPsS.orgwrote in
message news:ea**************@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>>I can't see how sending to the output stream can be slower than rendering
files. When you point url to a file, someone on the server site will need
to open the file an put the content in the http response.
I believe the OP was asking whether the extra overhead in creating the
thumbnails on the fly as and when they are needed would be significant
enough to make it worth actually storing the thumbnails themselves as
separate JPEGs on the server's file system, especially since Flash is
involved...
I'm afraid I don't know the answer...
--
Mark Rae
ASP.NET MVP
http://www.markrae.net