"Fossies" - the Fresh Open Source Software archive

Member "htmlpurifier-4.6.0/docs/enduser-slow.html" (30 Nov 2013, 4739 Bytes) of package /linux/www/htmlpurifier-4.6.0.tar.gz:


Caution: In this restricted "Fossies" environment the current HTML page may not be correctly presentated and may have some non-functional links. Alternatively you can here view or download the uninterpreted raw source code. A member file download can also be achieved by clicking within a package contents listing on the according byte size field.

Speeding up HTML Purifier

...also known as the HELP ME LIBRARY IS TOO SLOW MY PAGE TAKE TOO LONG page
Filed under End-User
Return to the index.
HTML Purifier End-User Documentation

HTML Purifier is a very powerful library. But with power comes great responsibility, in the form of longer execution times. Remember, this library isn't lightly grazing over submitted HTML: it's deconstructing the whole thing, rigorously checking the parts, and then putting it back together.

So, if it so turns out that HTML Purifier is kinda too slow for outbound filtering, you've got a few options:

Inbound filtering

Perform filtering of HTML when it's submitted by the user. Since the user is already submitting something, an extra half a second tacked on to the load time probably isn't going to be that huge of a problem. Then, displaying the content is a simple a manner of outputting it directly from your database/filesystem. The trouble with this method is that your user loses the original text, and when doing edits, will be handling the filtered text. While this may be a good thing, especially if you're using a WYSIWYG editor, it can also result in data-loss if a user makes a typo.

Example (non-functional):

<?php
    /**
     * FORM SUBMISSION PAGE
     * display_error($message) : displays nice error page with message
     * display_success() : displays a nice success page
     * display_form() : displays the HTML submission form
     * database_insert($html) : inserts data into database as new row
     */
    if (!empty($_POST)) {
        require_once '/path/to/library/HTMLPurifier.auto.php';
        require_once 'HTMLPurifier.func.php';
        $dirty_html = isset($_POST['html']) ? $_POST['html'] : false;
        if (!$dirty_html) {
            display_error('You must write some HTML!');
        }
        $html = HTMLPurifier($dirty_html);
        database_insert($html);
        display_success();
        // notice that $dirty_html is *not* saved
    } else {
        display_form();
    }
?>

Caching the filtered output

Accept the submitted text and put it unaltered into the database, but then also generate a filtered version and stash that in the database. Serve the filtered version to readers, and the unaltered version to editors. If need be, you can invalidate the cache and have the cached filtered version be regenerated on the first page view. Pros? Full data retention. Cons? It's more complicated, and opens other editors up to XSS if they are using a WYSIWYG editor (to fix that, they'd have to be able to get their hands on the *really* original text served in plaintext mode).

Example (non-functional):

<?php
    /**
     * VIEW PAGE
     * display_error($message) : displays nice error page with message
     * cache_get($id) : retrieves HTML from fast cache (db or file)
     * cache_insert($id, $html) : inserts good HTML into cache system
     * database_get($id) : retrieves raw HTML from database
     */
    $id = isset($_GET['id']) ? (int) $_GET['id'] : false;
    if (!$id) {
        display_error('Must specify ID.');
        exit;
    }
    $html = cache_get($id); // filesystem or database
    if ($html === false) {
        // cache didn't have the HTML, generate it
        $raw_html = database_get($id);
        require_once '/path/to/library/HTMLPurifier.auto.php';
        require_once 'HTMLPurifier.func.php';
        $html = HTMLPurifier($raw_html);
        cache_insert($id, $html);
    }
    echo $html;
?>

Summary

In short, inbound filtering is the simple option and caching is the robust option (albeit with bigger storage requirements).

There is a third option, independent of the two we've discussed: profile and optimize HTMLPurifier yourself. Be sure to report back your results if you decide to do that! Especially if you port HTML Purifier to C++. ;-)