Page 1 of 1
FTP or HTTP?
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 2:51 pm
by Charles256
So we all know that FTP is what you use to transfer large files, it's easier for those with half of a technical know how. But how do you convince your boss to use FTP when they're expecting clients to submit large files regularly or is using HTTP acceptable? Give me some evidence when you make your claim for either one please.

Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 3:44 pm
by Christopher
The main difference between FTP and HTTP is that FTP has an authenticated session with the reconnection benefits that implies. However, you can also implement an authenticated session with the HTTP as well as reconnection functionality -- but you need to do it yourself. So it is really a money question for your boss unless she/he does not mind clients transfers failing and having to restart.
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 5:38 pm
by Kieran Huggins
I built a file-upload-via-web-form thing that runs on Uniform Server on an office computer - works like a charm. I set the max filesize to 100M and basically just host that one form - the uploaded files are then available locally on a Windows SMB share. Easy peasy.
Posted: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:29 pm
by califdon
arborint wrote:The main difference between FTP and HTTP is that FTP has an authenticated session with the reconnection benefits that implies. However, you can also implement an authenticated session with the HTTP as well as reconnection functionality -- but you need to do it yourself. So it is really a money question for your boss unless she/he does not mind clients transfers failing and having to restart.
Thanks, arborint, for that concise and clear comparison. Very useful knowledge!