MCPUK File Browser: Keep it or find a replacement?

Just curious about what you guys think about the MCPUK file browser. Should we keep it or should we find a more suitable replacement?

If we decide to keep it, one of the things I’m hoping to do is loose all the frames within the file browser itself. We should also consider how the image editing functions work for us and whether there should be something else or not for it too.

If we decide to replace it...well...any ideas? Regardless, I wouldn’t mind hearing about what else is out there. My main concern is having something that can act as a file manager for both images and files with image editing capabilities built in. We really can’t afford to use a different manager for both files and images.

Just some thoughts to ponder.

Could you suggest some alternates, along with their relative file sizes and flexibility?

Well...there iManager at http://www.j-cons.com (Marco M. Jaeger’s site).  However, to use them we would have to alter it somewhat.  It’s currently just an image manager but I don’t see why we couldn’t turn it into a file manager as well.  Basically, there’s a few directions we could go with it:

One, we could replace the MCPUK file browser altogether with a modified version of iManager for image/file management.  I think the image editing capabilities within iManager are probably better than what we have now...but there are likely going to be a few areas that need some fixes.  We could likely borrow alot of ideas from MCPUK to allow thumbnails/icons for files and images rather than simple lists....though I admit I like lists since they are so much faster. 

The other solution would be to continue using MCPUK but change the image editor to a modified version of iManager.  Basically we turn iManager into just an image editor and pass off the image we want to edit from MCPUK.  We would still have to edit MCPUK quite a bit...I really wanna get rid of the damn frames.

There’s also the Wei Zhuo Image Manager that comes with Xinha (HTMLArea).  Probably would have to hack the crap out of it though. 

There’s probably some other solutions out there...but so far I’m having little luck!  Again...wouldn’t mind hearing what other ideas some of you guys might have. 

L8R!

Sounds like it might be best to work with iManager from first blush. Would love to have mmjaeger participating in it as well!

I’ve never been a fan of the HTMLArea image manager. iManager looks very nice, if it can be changed to handle files I think it would be great.

Marco e-mailed me directly a while back so...I’ll send him a message and see what he thinks. I think between the two of us we can come up with something pretty good. Not to mention that it looks like that the iManager would be pretty easy to rebrand as a MODx exclusive thing.

Personally I don’t like the load time of iManager and I don’t think I like how it’s laid out.

Quote from: xwisdom at Sep 11, 2005, 09:46 PM

Personally I don’t like the load time of iManager and I don’t think I like how it’s laid out.

Hmm...I think the load time is sort of dependant on the server really. The demo on Marco’s website loaded pretty quickly for me just now (even after clearing my cache). The load time could likely be dramatically reduced by just analyzing the code and finding ways to streamline it. I will say that, in my humble opinion, iManager can still load quicker in some instances...especially on an images directory that has quite a few images in it. You kind of have to consider the load time for thumbnails in MCPUK. iManager doesn’t show thumbnails till you select an image file.

I’m sure we can play with it and improve the layout and interface. I do have some issues with the interface here and there so there is definitely going to be some areas that need some improvement. I’m sure Marco won’t mind since he seemed very open to anyone improving it.

My only concern is just finding a solution that will meet our needs to the best extent. If it’s the MCPUK resource browser, then so be it...but we definitely would need to improve the image editing capabilities integrated with MCPUK. I just think it’s a good idea from an end-user standpoint that we consider all possibilities and find the one that’s the easiest to use. Granted, not every solution is going to be to everyone’s liking right out the gate...but if we pick one that we can modify to meet our needs then we can always come to an agreement as time goes on. It’s the end-users we need to think about because the majority of people who will be using MODx/Tattoo will be people who don’t have a clue on how to edit a website. The more dumbed-down and easier to use, the better.

So far, I think iManager is probably the closest thing to a worthwhile solution. I’ve played with it a bit and find it to be pretty easy to work with when it comes to integrating it with all the main editors (FCK, TinyMCE, Xinha). I’m sure Marco will be a great help in getting it in the shape it needs to be to make it worthwhile. Granted, the MCPUK browser itself is pretty self-explanatory and easy to use...but as stated above, the image editor leaves alot to be desired and I think it’ll just confuse your average user. The image editing capabilities in iManager are more extensive and pretty damn cool. With some rethinking of the interface, I think it could be alot better than it already is.

That’s my 2-cents.

You might want to consider this project to be your choice of file browser.

http://quixplorer.sourceforge.net/

It is very powerful but yet it is so tiny!

Thanks

Quote from: chanh at Sep 11, 2005, 11:26 PM

You might want to consider this project to be your choice of file browser.

http://quixplorer.sourceforge.net/

It is very powerful but yet it is so tiny!

Thanks

Thanks for sharing! I’ll definitely take a look at it and put it in as a possibility. In the brief time I looked at the specs, it looks like it’s pretty decent from a simple file manager point of view...but I did notice that there isn’t any image editing capabilities. Hmm...