Laravel Chunk Upload Laravel Package

Product Decisions This Supports

• Feature scoping for large-file ingestion. If your roadmap includes uploads of video, high-res assets, datasets, backups, or compliance evidence, this package covers the server half of the problem (chunk receipt, ordering, assembly, cleanup) so your team can scope the feature around UX and storage policy rather than protocol mechanics.
• Build vs. buy for resumable uploads. Building chunk handling in-house is a deceptively large task — partial-chunk reconciliation, out-of-order retries, temp-file garbage collection, provider-specific request shapes. This is a thin MIT-licensed adapter that converts a commodity problem into a config decision; the correct framing is "integrate, don't invent."
• Frontend vendor flexibility as a product constraint. Support for jQuery-file-upload, DropZone, pupload, and resumable.js means the choice of upload widget is not coupled to a backend rewrite. Useful when the web app, an admin panel, and a legacy surface are on different stacks.
• Reliability-driven retention work. Resumable uploads directly attack a measurable funnel: abandonment and support tickets on failed large uploads. This is a candidate for a "quality of life" roadmap item with a defensible success metric (upload completion rate, retry-to-success rate, tickets per 1k uploads).
• Deferring infrastructure spend. Because the package stores chunks on a Laravel disk and assembles server-side, it lets you ship large-file support without committing to presigned direct-to-object-storage architecture, CDN multipart plumbing, or a managed upload vendor.
• Reversibility as a portfolio property. MIT license, single-purpose scope, and a narrow surface (a controller/route plus a storage contract) mean the decision is cheap to undo if requirements grow into direct-to-S3 presigned uploads.

When to Consider This Package

Consider it when most of the following are true:

• The backend is Laravel/PHP and the team is already comfortable with framework conventions (service providers, config publishing, disks).
• You need resumable or chunked uploads in the 100 MB–several GB range, over networks you don't control (mobile, field staff, international users).
• One of the supported frontend providers is already in use or acceptable — otherwise you inherit the work of matching an unsupported client's request contract.
• The upload path is not the core product differentiator; you want a competent default, not a bespoke protocol.
• You can own the surrounding responsibilities yourself: authorization, quotas, rate limiting, virus scanning, content-type validation, and post-upload processing are explicitly out of scope.
• You are comfortable with a moderately adopted, likely single-maintainer dependency — mitigated by MIT licensing and a thin codebase that is cheap to fork or vendor.

Look elsewhere (or plan to wrap it) when:

• You need direct-to-cloud multipart uploads (presigned S3/GCS URLs) to keep large payloads off your app servers. This package's default posture is server-mediated assembly, which becomes an egress and memory concern at scale.
• You want a standardized protocol (tus, S3 multipart) for cross-client and mobile-SDK interoperability.
• You need vendor support, SLAs, or a security review trail — 724 stars and 0 dependent packages is thin ecosystem validation; do a code read rather than trusting adoption signals.
• Uploads are small (<20–50 MB) and a plain multipart form post is sufficient; the added moving parts buy nothing.
• You require built-in media pipeline features — transcoding, thumbnailing, virus scanning, EXIF stripping. Pair with a media library and an async processing queue, or choose a managed service.

How to Pitch It (Stakeholders)

For executives: This is a small, free, open-source integration that lets us support reliable large-file uploads — including resume-after-drop — without a multi-sprint build or a paid vendor. It removes a known source of user frustration and support cost in any workflow that involves big files, and because it's MIT-licensed and narrowly scoped, the downside is bounded: if our needs outgrow it, we replace one adapter layer rather than unwinding an architecture.

For engineering: It's a thin, framework-native adapter that handles chunk receipt, ordering, assembly, and cleanup across several common frontend uploaders, so we don't hand-roll a protocol. It does not solve storage strategy, authorization, scanning, or scaling — those remain ours, and we should decide up front whether we're comfortable with server-mediated assembly or need presigned direct-to-storage. Recommend a time-boxed spike: one provider, one disk, measured throughput and memory on our largest expected file, plus a read-through of the code given the maintainer concentration risk.

Decision to request: Approve a one-sprint spike with defined exit criteria (successful resumable upload at target file size, acceptable memory/egress profile, documented ownership of auth/scanning/quota). If it passes, adopt; if not, we fall back to presigned cloud multipart with clear evidence for why.