Pros of jQuery-File-Upload

• More mature and widely adopted project with a larger community
• Extensive documentation and examples available
• Supports a wider range of browsers, including older versions

Cons of jQuery-File-Upload

• Heavier dependency on jQuery, which may not be ideal for modern projects
• Less focus on mobile-specific features compared to WebUploader

Code Comparison

WebUploader:

var uploader = WebUploader.create({
    pick: '#filePicker',
    server: '/upload.php'
});
uploader.on('fileQueued', function(file) {
    // File added to queue
});

jQuery-File-Upload:

$('#fileupload').fileupload({
    url: '/upload.php',
    done: function (e, data) {
        // File upload completed
    }
});

Both libraries offer similar functionality for file uploading, but WebUploader provides a more modern API structure. jQuery-File-Upload relies more heavily on jQuery conventions and callbacks.

WebUploader focuses on providing a flexible and customizable upload solution with better support for mobile devices and modern web applications. It offers features like chunked uploads and a more streamlined API.

jQuery-File-Upload, being an older and more established project, has broader browser support and a larger ecosystem of plugins and extensions. It's well-suited for projects that already use jQuery and require compatibility with older browsers.

Pros of Uppy

• More active development with frequent updates and releases
• Extensive plugin ecosystem for added functionality
• Better support for modern browsers and frameworks

Cons of Uppy

• Larger file size and potentially higher resource usage
• Steeper learning curve due to more complex architecture

Code Comparison

WebUploader:

var uploader = WebUploader.create({
    pick: '#filePicker',
    server: '/upload.php'
});
uploader.on('fileQueued', function(file) {
    // File added to queue
});

Uppy:

const uppy = new Uppy()
  .use(Dashboard, { trigger: '#select-files' })
  .use(XHRUpload, { endpoint: '/upload' })

uppy.on('file-added', (file) => {
  // File added to Uppy
})

Key Differences

• Uppy offers a more modular approach with plugins
• WebUploader has a simpler API but less flexibility
• Uppy provides a more modern and customizable UI out of the box

Community and Ecosystem

• Uppy has a larger and more active community
• More third-party integrations available for Uppy
• WebUploader has better documentation in Chinese

Performance

• WebUploader may have slightly better performance for basic use cases
• Uppy offers better handling of large files and concurrent uploads

Pros of Fine Uploader

• More comprehensive documentation and examples
• Wider browser support, including older versions
• Offers both jQuery and non-jQuery versions

Cons of Fine Uploader

• Larger file size and potentially heavier resource usage
• Less focus on modern, mobile-friendly interfaces

Code Comparison

Fine Uploader:

var uploader = new qq.FineUploader({
    element: document.getElementById('uploader'),
    request: {
        endpoint: '/server/upload'
    }
});

WebUploader:

var uploader = WebUploader.create({
    pick: '#picker',
    server: '/server/upload'
});

Additional Notes

Both Fine Uploader and WebUploader are file upload libraries for web applications. Fine Uploader offers more features and broader compatibility, making it suitable for complex projects with diverse browser support requirements. WebUploader, developed by Baidu's FEX team, is more lightweight and focuses on modern web standards, making it a good choice for projects targeting newer browsers and mobile devices.

Fine Uploader has a larger community and more frequent updates, while WebUploader has strong support in the Chinese developer community. The choice between the two depends on specific project requirements, target audience, and desired features.

Pros of flow.js

• Lightweight and focused on chunk-based file uploads
• Better cross-browser compatibility, including older browsers
• More active development and community support

Cons of flow.js

• Less feature-rich compared to WebUploader
• Requires more custom implementation for advanced features
• Limited built-in UI components

Code Comparison

WebUploader:

var uploader = WebUploader.create({
    pick: '#filePicker',
    server: '/upload.php'
});
uploader.on('fileQueued', function(file) {
    // File added to queue
});

flow.js:

var flow = new Flow({
    target: '/upload.php',
    chunkSize: 1024 * 1024
});
flow.assignBrowse(document.getElementById('filePicker'));
flow.on('fileAdded', function(file, event) {
    // File added to queue
});

Both libraries provide similar functionality for file uploads, but WebUploader offers more built-in features and UI components out of the box. flow.js focuses on core chunked upload functionality, allowing for more customization but requiring additional implementation for advanced features. WebUploader has a more comprehensive API, while flow.js is lighter and more flexible for specific use cases.

Pros of Dropzone

• More active development and maintenance
• Extensive documentation and examples
• Wider browser compatibility, including mobile support

Cons of Dropzone

• Larger file size (~ 50KB minified)
• Less customizable UI out of the box
• Limited built-in features compared to WebUploader

Code Comparison

WebUploader:

var uploader = WebUploader.create({
    pick: '#filePicker',
    server: '/upload.php'
});
uploader.on('fileQueued', function(file) {
    // File added to queue
});

Dropzone:

Dropzone.options.myDropzone = {
    url: "/upload.php",
    init: function() {
        this.on("addedfile", function(file) {
            // File added to dropzone
        });
    }
};

Both libraries provide easy-to-use APIs for file uploading, but WebUploader offers more granular control over the upload process, while Dropzone focuses on simplicity and ease of integration. WebUploader's chunk upload feature is more advanced, making it suitable for large file uploads. Dropzone's drag-and-drop interface is more polished out of the box, requiring less customization for a modern look and feel.