Pros of Uppy

• More comprehensive file upload solution with a rich UI and plugin ecosystem
• Supports various upload sources (local, remote URLs, webcam, etc.)
• Integrates with multiple backend services and storage providers

Cons of Uppy

• Larger bundle size due to its extensive feature set
• Steeper learning curve for basic implementations
• May be overkill for simple upload requirements

Code Comparison

Uppy (basic setup):

const Uppy = require('@uppy/core')
const XHRUpload = require('@uppy/xhr-upload')

const uppy = new Uppy()
  .use(XHRUpload, { endpoint: 'https://example.com/upload' })

uppy.on('complete', (result) => {
  console.log('Upload complete! We've uploaded these files:', result.successful)
})

tus-js-client (basic setup):

var upload = new tus.Upload(file, {
  endpoint: "https://example.com/files/",
  retryDelays: [0, 3000, 5000, 10000, 20000],
  metadata: {
    filename: file.name,
    filetype: file.type
  },
  onError: function(error) {
    console.log("Failed because: " + error)
  },
  onProgress: function(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal) {
    var percentage = (bytesUploaded / bytesTotal * 100).toFixed(2)
    console.log(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal, percentage + "%")
  },
  onSuccess: function() {
    console.log("Download %s from %s", upload.file.name, upload.url)
  }
})

upload.start()

Both libraries offer robust file upload capabilities, but Uppy provides a more feature-rich solution with a polished UI, while tus-js-client focuses specifically on resumable uploads using the tus protocol.

Pros of jQuery-File-Upload

• Extensive browser support, including older versions
• Rich UI components and customizable templates
• Integrated image resizing and processing capabilities

Cons of jQuery-File-Upload

• Dependency on jQuery library
• Larger codebase and potentially heavier resource usage
• Less focus on resumable uploads compared to tus-js-client

Code Comparison

tus-js-client:

var upload = new tus.Upload(file, {
  endpoint: "https://tusd.tusdemo.net/files/",
  retryDelays: [0, 3000, 5000, 10000, 20000],
  metadata: {
    filename: file.name,
    filetype: file.type
  },
  onError: function(error) {
    console.log("Failed because: " + error)
  },
  onProgress: function(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal) {
    var percentage = (bytesUploaded / bytesTotal * 100).toFixed(2)
    console.log(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal, percentage + "%")
  },
  onSuccess: function() {
    console.log("Download %s from %s", upload.file.name, upload.url)
  }
})

jQuery-File-Upload:

$('#fileupload').fileupload({
  url: 'server/php/',
  dataType: 'json',
  done: function (e, data) {
    $.each(data.result.files, function (index, file) {
      $('<p/>').text(file.name).appendTo('#files');
    });
  },
  progressall: function (e, data) {
    var progress = parseInt(data.loaded / data.total * 100, 10);
    $('#progress .progress-bar').css(
      'width',
      progress + '%'
    );
  }
});

Pros of resumable.js

• More flexible and customizable, allowing for greater control over the upload process
• Supports a wider range of server implementations and protocols
• Has been around longer and may have a more mature ecosystem

Cons of resumable.js

• Less standardized approach compared to the TUS protocol
• May require more server-side configuration and implementation
• Not as actively maintained as tus-js-client

Code Comparison

tus-js-client:

const upload = new tus.Upload(file, {
  endpoint: "https://tusd.tusdemo.net/files/",
  retryDelays: [0, 3000, 5000, 10000, 20000],
  metadata: {
    filename: file.name,
    filetype: file.type
  },
  onError: function(error) {
    console.log("Failed because: " + error)
  },
  onProgress: function(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal) {
    var percentage = (bytesUploaded / bytesTotal * 100).toFixed(2)
    console.log(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal, percentage + "%")
  },
  onSuccess: function() {
    console.log("Download %s from %s", upload.file.name, upload.url)
  }
})

upload.start()

resumable.js:

var r = new Resumable({
  target: '/upload',
  chunkSize: 1*1024*1024,
  simultaneousUploads: 4,
  testChunks: true,
  throttleProgressCallbacks: 1
});

r.assignBrowse(document.getElementById('browseButton'));

r.on('fileAdded', function(file) {
  r.upload();
});

r.on('fileSuccess', function(file, message) {
  console.log(file.fileName + ' successfully uploaded');
});

r.on('fileError', function(file, message) {
  console.log(file.fileName + ' failed to upload: ' + message);
});

Pros of flow.js

• Supports a wider range of browsers, including older versions
• Offers more customization options for chunk size and concurrent uploads
• Provides built-in pause and resume functionality

Cons of flow.js

• Less focused on the tus protocol, which may limit compatibility with some servers
• Requires more manual configuration for optimal performance
• Has fewer built-in security features compared to tus-js-client

Code Comparison

tus-js-client:

var upload = new tus.Upload(file, {
  endpoint: "https://tusd.tusdemo.net/files/",
  retryDelays: [0, 3000, 5000, 10000, 20000],
  metadata: {
    filename: file.name,
    filetype: file.type
  },
  onError: function(error) {
    console.log("Failed because: " + error)
  },
  onProgress: function(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal) {
    var percentage = (bytesUploaded / bytesTotal * 100).toFixed(2)
    console.log(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal, percentage + "%")
  },
  onSuccess: function() {
    console.log("Download %s from %s", upload.file.name, upload.url)
  }
})

flow.js:

var flow = new Flow({
  target: '/api/photo/redeem-upload-token',
  query: { upload_token: 'my_token' }
});

flow.assignBrowse(document.getElementById('browseButton'));

flow.on('fileAdded', function(file, event){
  console.log(file, event);
});

flow.on('fileSuccess', function(file, message){
  console.log(file, message);
});

flow.on('fileError', function(file, message){
  console.log(file, message);
});

Pros of Fine-Uploader

• More comprehensive feature set, including drag-and-drop, image previews, and progress bars
• Supports multiple upload protocols (traditional multipart, chunked, and resumable)
• Extensive documentation and examples for various use cases

Cons of Fine-Uploader

• Larger file size and potentially more complex setup compared to tus-js-client
• Less focused on a single, standardized protocol (tus)
• May have a steeper learning curve for simple use cases

Code Comparison

Fine-Uploader:

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

tus-js-client:

var upload = new tus.Upload(file, {
    endpoint: '/uploads',
    onProgress: function(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal) {
        var percentage = (bytesUploaded / bytesTotal * 100).toFixed(2);
        console.log(percentage + '%');
    }
});

Summary

Fine-Uploader offers a more feature-rich solution with support for multiple upload protocols, making it suitable for complex use cases. However, this comes at the cost of a larger file size and potentially more complex setup. tus-js-client, on the other hand, focuses specifically on the tus resumable upload protocol, providing a simpler and more lightweight solution for projects that prioritize resumable uploads.

Pros of Dropzone

• More comprehensive file upload solution with a user-friendly drag-and-drop interface
• Extensive customization options for appearance and behavior
• Broader browser support, including older versions

Cons of Dropzone

• Larger file size and potentially heavier resource usage
• Less specialized for handling large file uploads or resumable uploads
• May require more setup for advanced features

Code Comparison

tus-js-client:

var upload = new tus.Upload(file, {
  endpoint: "https://tusd.tusdemo.net/files/",
  retryDelays: [0, 3000, 5000, 10000, 20000],
  metadata: {
    filename: file.name,
    filetype: file.type
  },
  onError: function(error) {
    console.log("Failed because: " + error)
  },
  onProgress: function(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal) {
    var percentage = (bytesUploaded / bytesTotal * 100).toFixed(2)
    console.log(bytesUploaded, bytesTotal, percentage + "%")
  },
  onSuccess: function() {
    console.log("Download %s from %s", upload.file.name, upload.url)
  }
})

Dropzone:

Dropzone.options.myDropzone = {
  url: "/file/post",
  paramName: "file",
  maxFilesize: 2,
  acceptedFiles: "image/*",
  addRemoveLinks: true,
  dictDefaultMessage: "Drop files here to upload",
  init: function() {
    this.on("success", function(file, response) {
      console.log("File uploaded successfully");
    });
  }
};

Both libraries offer file upload functionality, but tus-js-client focuses on resumable uploads with a simpler API, while Dropzone provides a more feature-rich and customizable drag-and-drop interface for general file uploads.