Can uploadcare-widget be used without using the upload care service?
The goal:
Use the widget (specifically to allow users to upload files from their google drive/dropbox accounts).
Instead of using upload care's backend, use your own backend, i.e. node.js/aws s3.
Yes, it can. It's open source!
Although you will have to either replicate or get rid of functionality that relies on Uploadcare infrastructure:
uploads (this is the easiest part)
fetching files from social networks and cloud storage services
image preview and cropping that relies on Uploadcare CDN
So unless you're moving enormous amounts of files, most cost efficient way is to use Uploadcare as it is. BTW, you can use your own S3 storage and even upload directly to your S3 buckets.
Related
What is best architecture to store images for blog and retrieval? I have a usecase where I have to design image storage / retrieval system for articles. Where and how should I store store these images and retrieve / access those while displaying contents of article with minimum latency?
It would be great if you can provide any reference for this. Thanks.
If you want minimum latency for image retrieval, you need to use a CDN (Content Delivery Network)
Check out this article for more details.
For example, AWS offers Cloud Front which is very simple to use - store the images into an S3 bucket, and then use dedicated CloudFront URLs on your client-side code, to fetch the images.
There are other CDN providers out there, you can find them right away on a Google search.
Implementing a requirement to store images in AWS bucket instead of NetSuite. Since the bucket is private, I have to upload and generate the URL in backend/suitelet.
I tried to include AWS SDK into Suitelet by defining, but that doesn't work.
I want to get to know whether can we use/include SDKs inside Suitelet?
How can I implement a solution for this without using any third party solutions?
How are permissions for the links managed? Can you make them publicly viewable? Remember unless the links you generate are timestamped anyone with the link can get to the image.
In terms of uploading the images check out https://github.com/DeepChannel/netsuite-savedsearch-s3
If you need to keep have each image have a magic link you could use a Heroku app or an AWS lambda. The app would check a hash based on link parameters and proxy the image if the hash is valid. If your images are supposed to be private to a customer this would be the way to go.
If you are using the images generally on a website then just make the bucket publicly readable and use the API to upload.
I wonder as one of my personal projects development goes further forward how should i organize the files ( images, videos, audio files ) uploaded by the users onto AWS's S3/GCE Cloud Storage, i'm used to see these kinds of URL below;
Facebook fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xft1/v/t1.0-9/11873531_1015...750483_5263546700711467249_n.jpg?oh=b3f06f7e...b7ebf7&oe=56392950&__gda__=1446569890_628...c7765669456
Tumblr 36.media.tumblr.com/686b47...e93fa09c2478/tumblr_nt7lnyP3ld1rqbl96o1_500.png
Twitter pbs.twimg.com/media/CMimixsV...AcZeM.jpg
Does these random characters carry some kind of meaning? or they're just "UUIDs"? Is there a performance/organization issue in using, for instance this kind of URL below?
content.socialnetworkX.com/userY/post/customName_dinosaurs.jpg
EDIT: Let be clear that i'm considering millions of files.
For S3, see the Performance Considerations page where it talks about object naming. Specifically, if you plan to upload objects at a high rate, you should avoid sequentially named objects, as they can be a bottleneck.
Google Cloud Storage does not have this performance bottleneck. See this answer.
I'm using Meteor and would like to create a form with an image upload field that saves the uploaded file to an Amazon S3 bucket in its original size as well as multiple thumbnails sizes defined (passed) via the code.
So far I'm using the lepozepo:s3 package which works great but doesn't seem to allow options for generating additional thumbnails.
Given I can upload the original files onto S3 I'm considering looking into a service on Amazon that can generate the desired thumbnails and then notify my Meteor app. But I'm not sure how to achieve that.
Can anyone point me in the right direction or share some insight into the best approach for this?
PS: I want to avoid using Filepicker.io is possible.
Seems I was following the wrong path. CollectionFS has everything I need and more. I now have this working with plenty of scope to do more later. This is one brilliant collection of packages with clear guides on respective Github pages.
Here are the packages I ended up usings:
cfs:standard-packages - base
cfs:gridfs - required for some reason, not sure why
cfs:graphicsmagick - thumbnailing/cropping
cfs:s3 - S3 upload
Code sample →
CollectionFS is now deprecated, but there are other options:
Only upload, without S3 integration*: https://github.com/tomitrescak/meteor-uploads
Use the jQuery-File-Upload (which is great), it generates thumbs, has size and format validation, etc. Using basically these two packages together:
https://atmospherejs.com/tomi/upload-jquery
https://atmospherejs.com/tomi/upload-server
You can use other package for S3 integration.
Like: https://github.com/peerlibrary/meteor-aws-sdk/
Upload + Integration with S3: https://github.com/Lepozepo/S3
Good, but if you need to generate thumbs for example you will need to integrate with other package or do it yourself. I not tested, but I got this suggestion: https://github.com/jamgold/cropuploader
Upload only, but with examples of how to generate thumbs or integrate with S3 / DropBox / GridFS /: https://github.com/VeliovGroup/Meteor-Files/
Rich documentation and does well which proposes: Upload images.
Use that adapt best to your needs.
look at blueimp's "jquery file upload" for client and image server resizing. On client you have a bit limited possibilities quality wise, on server you can use full power of imagemagick. Or look at my blog post on http://doctorllama.wordpress.com for file uploads for meteor in general.
cfs:gridfs - required for some reason, not sure why
Meteor using gridfs to store file chunks inside mongo database. In case of s3 it's for temporary storage.
I'm not sure how to word the question but here is what I am looking to do.
I have a site that uses custom map tile overlays on a google map.
The javascript calls a php file on my server that checks to see if an existing map tile exists for the given x, y, and zoom level.
If if exists, it displays that image using file_get_contents.
If it doesn't exist, it creates the new tile then displays it.
I would like to utilize Amazon S3 store and serve the images since there could end being a lot of them and my server is slow. If I have my script check to see if the image exists on amazon and then display it, I am guessing I am not getting the benefits of the speed and Amazons CDN. Is there a way to do this?
Or is there a way to try and pull the file from Amazon first then set up something on Amazon to redirect to my script if the files no there?
Maybe host the script on another of Amazons services? The tile generation is quite slow also in some cases.
Thanks
Ideas:
1 - Use CloudFront, but point it to a cluster of tile generation machines. This way, you can generate the tiles on demand, and any future requests are served right from Cloudfront.
2 - Use CloudFront, but back with with an S3 store of generated tiles. Turn on logging for the S3 bucket, so you can detect failed requests. Consume those logs on a schedule, and generate the missing tiles. This results in a cheaper way of generating tiles, but means that when a tile fails the user get's nothing.
3 - Just pre-generate all the tiles. Throw tasks in an SQS queue, then spin up a collection of EC2 instances to generate the tiles. This will cost the most up front, but all users get a fast experience.
I've written a blog post with a strategy for dealing with this. It's designed to make intelligent and thrifty use of CloudFront, maximize caching and deal with new versions of existing images. You may find the technique described there helpful. The example code shows how to handle different dimensions (i.e. thumbnails) of images. You could modify it to handle different zoom levels.
I need to update that post to support CloudFront custom origins, and I think that for your application you might be better off skipping S3 and using a custom origin. The advantage of a custom origin is simply that it's probably going to be easier to manage all of your images on your local filesystem compared to managing them on S3.