thats a pity gallery can’t use files directly.
the difference:
with bare gallery:
<img class="" src="/assets/components/gallery/connector.php?action=web/phpthumb&w=100&h=100&zc=1&far=C&q=90&src=http%3A%2F%2Fmodx2.frischnetz.de%2Fassets%2Fcomponents%2Fgallery%2Ffiles%2F3%2F44.jpg" alt="img_9717.jpg">
with phpthumbof:
<img class="" src="/assets/components/phpthumbof/cache/_assets_components_gallery_files_3_44.jpg.05dda00f0de4d0a2611fe64d7fcf77f6.png" alt="img_9717.jpg">
of course there is a HUGE difference. in case of phpthumbof the webserver serves the static file directly and this gives the performance you would expect from "cache". The bare gallery does a PHP request and depending on how well your php is configured eg, as a module or standalone, webserver config etc. it could be anywhere between OK to slow in terms of performance. it does not matter if PHP requests the static file from cache via or not (OK, well it makes it a lot faster than calling imagemagick every time of course...) it is still running PHP and it will always be a lot slower than calling a static file directly. And with the fast proxy front ends like nginx the static files are served at a blistering speed.
So phpthumbof it is for me anyway...
I haven’t studied the code properly but I dont like the phpthumb&w=100&h=100&zc=1 in the url either - size should be already predetermined if it is cached no? is there another dynamic sizing operation going on or something...
and another big problem is that browsers don’t cache dynamic link like gallery outputs for thumbnails. so every time you reload the page it requests the thumbnails from the server - talking of bringing servers to their knees.
I wish I had time to look into more detail right now..
☆ A M B ☆
☆ A M B ☆