render an image from another server

Discussion in 'HTML' started by rich, Feb 12, 2009.

  1. rich

    rich Guest

    We have a web app on an IIS(6) web server.
    We store some images on another server (for documents and images)
    which is on the same network as the web server.
    There is NO domain for this network.

    We’ve already lost a couple of hours trying to get the images from the
    one server to render in our web app and just can’t do it.
    So, in our ASP app, we are referencing the image in this way:

    <img src="file://///192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg">

    I don’t really want to install IIS on the document server do i?

    I have tried setting up the same “internet” user from the web server
    on the document server, but it prefixes the username with the server
    name and doesn't seem to work.

    I've tried different ways to reference the file location (file://, \
    \servername\image.jpg, etc.)
    I've setup mapped network drives
    I've set permissions to "everyone", "full control"
    Nothing works.

    Any ideas?
     
    rich, Feb 12, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. ..oO(rich)

    >We have a web app on an IIS(6) web server.
    >We store some images on another server (for documents and images)
    >which is on the same network as the web server.
    >There is NO domain for this network.
    >
    >We’ve already lost a couple of hours trying to get the images from the
    >one server to render in our web app and just can’t do it.
    >So, in our ASP app, we are referencing the image in this way:
    >
    ><img src="file://///192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg">


    Try file://192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg

    Micha
     
    Michael Fesser, Feb 12, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. rich

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 12 Feb, 20:24, rich <> wrote:
    > We have a web app on an IIS(6) web server.


    Irrelevant. This is just a matter for the client web browser and the
    media server. The web server sends a HTML page to the browser, which
    contains URLs in the <img src="..." > attribute. Then the _browser_
    requests this from the media server, without involving the web server
    any more.

    Do you have a URL to an image that works? e.g.
    file://192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg
    or
    http://192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg

    If you do, then paste that into the HTML on the web server - that's
    all you need.

    It's not _quite_ all. Stick with "simple" characters and you'll be OK,
    but if you have embedded spaces or punctuation in a filename or URL,
    you'll have to "percent encode" this when you turn it into a href or
    src attribute for the HTML. "foo bar" becomes "foo%20bar"

    If you can't get either of these URLs to work FROM THE BROWSER, then
    you have a problem. Even if you can access these from the web server,
    they need to be accessible from the browser as well.

    If you have a file server that's not accessible from the browser, then
    you could also configure the web server so that it serves web content
    for some virtual directory as coming off that file server. In that
    case the HTTP aspect doesn't see the difference at all and just sees
    "a big web server" through URLs like this:
    <img src="/media/abc.jpg" >
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 13, 2009
    #3
  4. Andy Dingley wrote:

    > Do you have a URL to an image that works? e.g.
    > file://192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg
    > or
    > http://192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg


    The former cannot work, in WWW terms. Any file: URL indicates a resource to
    be accessed in a machine-dependent manner, by definition, so it by
    definition won't work on the World Wide Web. It may work inside a computer
    or inside a local network. More info:
    http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/ftpurl.html

    The latter postulates that the image is on an HTTP server, which is fine but
    something that the OP explicitly wanted to avoid.

    > If you can't get either of these URLs to work FROM THE BROWSER, then
    > you have a problem.


    Even if you can make them work on a browser, you have a problem at least
    with the first one, the ftp: URL, since it won't work on other people's
    browsers, except perhaps very locally.

    > If you have a file server that's not accessible from the browser, then
    > you could also configure the web server so that it serves web content
    > for some virtual directory as coming off that file server. In that
    > case the HTTP aspect doesn't see the difference at all and just sees
    > "a big web server" through URLs like this:
    > <img src="/media/abc.jpg" >


    I don't quite see the point here, especially since it postulates that the
    image is on the same server as the referring HTML document - something that
    was specified as not being the case (see the Subject line).

    But a different idea popped into my mind: if running an HTTP server is too
    much work (and it really requires some time and care), maybe an FTP server
    is more feasible. Then you could use ftp: URLs. Not very modern, but
    possible.

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 13, 2009
    #4
  5. Gazing into my crystal ball I observed rich <>
    writing in news:13b7c090-25fd-4530-b4c9-3761e35a3417
    @t13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com:

    > We have a web app on an IIS(6) web server.
    > We store some images on another server (for documents and images)
    > which is on the same network as the web server.
    > There is NO domain for this network.
    >
    > We've already lost a couple of hours trying to get the images from the
    > one server to render in our web app and just can't do it.
    >


    If this is a classic ASP page, you might want to post to
    microsoft.public.iis.asp.general, otherwise, try one of the dot net groups,
    IIRC they have framework in their name.

    --
    Adrienne Boswell at Home
    Arbpen Web Site Design Services
    http://www.cavalcade-of-coding.info
    Please respond to the group so others can share
     
    Adrienne Boswell, Feb 13, 2009
    #5
  6. Michael Fesser wrote:
    > .oO(rich)
    >
    >> We have a web app on an IIS(6) web server.
    >> We store some images on another server (for documents and images)
    >> which is on the same network as the web server.
    >> There is NO domain for this network.
    >>
    >> We’ve already lost a couple of hours trying to get the images from the
    >> one server to render in our web app and just can’t do it.
    >> So, in our ASP app, we are referencing the image in this way:
    >>
    >> <img src="file://///192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg">

    >
    > Try file://192.168.1.110/documents/abc.jpg
    >
    > Micha


    That will be useless for any web client who isn't on the local network
    with file system permissions to view that file.
     
    Harlan Messinger, Feb 13, 2009
    #6
  7. rich

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 13 Feb, 02:46, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:

    > The former cannot work, in WWW terms.


    Although the OP didn't state this, I was assuming (from the IP range)
    that they're talking about a purely intranet app.
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 14, 2009
    #7
  8. rich

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 13 Feb, 17:36, Harlan Messinger <>
    wrote:

    > Regarding the file: version: Hardly, unless all intended users are
    > inside the network (since that's a non-routable IP address) and all have
    > file system permission to view that file.


    That's a common (intranet) situation though. Rather than building a
    corporate document store where the web server understands user access
    rights, just reference them from the file server with file:// URLs and
    let the fileserver decide what they're allowed to see.
     
    Andy Dingley, Feb 14, 2009
    #8
  9. Andy Dingley wrote:

    > On 13 Feb, 02:46, "Jukka K. Korpela" <> wrote:
    >
    >> The former cannot work, in WWW terms.

    >
    > Although the OP didn't state this, I was assuming (from the IP range)
    > that they're talking about a purely intranet app.


    They might mean that, but they _said_ "web", which is short for "World Wide
    Web".

    --
    Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
     
    Jukka K. Korpela, Feb 14, 2009
    #9
  10. rich

    John Hosking Guest

    Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    > Andy Dingley wrote:
    >
    >> On 13 Feb, 02:46, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
    >>
    >>> The former cannot work, in WWW terms.

    >>
    >> Although the OP didn't state this, I was assuming (from the IP range)
    >> that they're talking about a purely intranet app.

    >
    > They might mean that, but they _said_ "web", which is short for "World
    > Wide Web".
    >

    May I wax pedantic for a moment?

    In Microsoftese, "web" doesn't necessarily mean the WWW, no matter
    whether any of us think that it should. In FrontPage, the user is
    encouraged/instructed/allowed to "create a new web site", or even (in
    older versions, say FP98) to "create a new web", in both cases meaning
    to produce a site for internal or WWW use. Usually but not always
    Microsoft uses a lower-case "w" to refer to these sites, independent of
    whether they're published on the WWW.

    I claim the above based on my experiences up through FP2002. I don't
    know what what used in later versions of FrontPage or any of Microsoft
    Expression Web.

    In IIS, the entities are referred to "Web Sites" (thusly capitalized),
    whether of not they are accessed only locally or via an Internet
    connection to the World Wide Web.

    Of course, in the case of this thread I think it's hard to make too many
    assumptions based on the terminology used. The OP posted to alt.html
    (rather than, say, c.i.w.a.h), used GG, hasn't been back yet AFAWK, and
    said, "there is NO domain for this network." I'm leaning towards some
    internal usage rather than a publicly accessible WWW site, but who knows
    for sure?


    --
    John
    Let's not forget the UIP: http://improve-usenet.org/
     
    John Hosking, Feb 14, 2009
    #10
  11. rich

    Spamm Trappe Guest

    On Sat, 14 Feb 2009 19:07:43 +0100, John Hosking wrote:
    > Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
    >> Andy Dingley wrote:
    >> >>> On 13 Feb, 02:46, "Jukka K. Korpela" wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> The former cannot work, in WWW terms.
    >>>
    >>> Although the OP didn't state this, I was assuming (from the IP range)
    >>> that they're talking about a purely intranet app.

    >>
    >> They might mean that, but they _said_ "web", which is short for "World
    >> Wide Web".
    >>

    > May I wax pedantic for a moment?


    Not if you're going to cite "Microsoftese".

    <- snip ->
     
    Spamm Trappe, Feb 15, 2009
    #11
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. aymer
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    463
    aymer
    Aug 30, 2003
  2. Lau Lei Cheong

    Page.Render do not render complete page

    Lau Lei Cheong, May 15, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    2,094
    Lau Lei Cheong
    May 15, 2004
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    365
  4. Andy B
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    322
    Andy B
    Nov 20, 2008
  5. Glenn Gillen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    288
    Glenn Gillen
    Nov 17, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page