I've successfully uploaded, via Paperclip, images to the RackSpace cloudfile storage, and they appear correctly within subsequent webpages when I'm using the CDN url.
However, I can't figure out why Paperclip is not showing the files if I do not use CDN enabled cloud files.
Paperclip returns (via its 'url' method for the attachment) the more usual /attachments/fred/1/image/123.jpg path, however that results in a broken image as there is no actual file stored at that url - its in RS cloud file storage.
I'm not sure whether
a) Paperclip is supposed to give me a url to non-cdn location
b) Paperclip provides a url which results in it then responding at that url to provide the raw image data
c) Something completely different to a) and b)
If someone could please shed some light on what url I'm supposed to get back from Paperclip for non CDN enabled RackSpace stored files I think it would help steer me in the correct direction.
Thanks.
Rackspace Cloud Files has the ability to download files without a CDN, but after researching it paperclip and fog do not currently support this.
Paperclip supports both CDN access as well as downloading files using a temporary url (sans CDN). I was going to suggest using a temporary url, however, the get_http_url method paperclip uses to retrieve this url isn't currently implemented for Rackspace.
I have created a fog issue to address this https://github.com/fog/fog/issues/2103.
Related
For my Rails application, I download a bunch of files from a remote URL to my application. I would like to directly upload them to Amazon S3, without needing a form to do the upload, since I will temporarily cache the file I downloaded on the EC2 instance.
I would also like to retain the links to the files I uploaded so I can download them later.
I am essentially reposting the files I downloaded.
I looked around, but most of the solution seem to involve form uploading to S3 with a user.
Is there s direct upload solution?
You can upload directly to S3 using the AWS SDK for Ruby. The easiest way is:
require 'aws-sdk'
s3 = Aws::S3::Resource.new(region:'us-west-2')
obj = s3.bucket('bucket-name').object('key')
obj.upload_file('/path/to/source/file')
Or you can find a couple other options here.
You can simply use EvaporateJS to achieve this. You can also take advantage of sending ajax request to update file name to the database after each file upload. Though javascript exposes few details your bucket is not vulnerable to hack as S3 service provide a bucket policy.
Just set the <AllowedOrigin>*</AllowedOrigin> to <AllowedOrigin>specificwebsite.com</AllowedOrigin> in production mode.
My website generates a file in javascript (audio recording) and I then want it to be uploaded to Amazon S3.
I first managed to get the uploading part working by sending the generated file to my server, where it is uploaded. However I would like now to upload the file directly to S3, without going through my server.
So I started to use the s3_direct_upload gem, which works great when using a file_field. However my file is generated by the javascript and :
- The value of a file field has to be set by the user for security reasons
- I do not want the user to have to interact with the upload
I tried to play with the S3Uploader class and to directly add data, without any success for now, it seems that I do not use the correct method.
Does anyone has any idea on how to achieve S3 direct upload without a file field ?
Thanks
Never mind, I found out that the S3Uploader class used by the s3_direct_upload gem has the same methods as the jQuery-File-Upload from which it is derived.
So one can call $("#s3_uploader").fileupload('send', {files: [f]});
And the f File will be uploaded to S3 directly
I have application where we have posts to which we upload photos. I have implemented S3 uploading module using carrier-wave and fog integration which is successful. But when images are uploaded along with versions the original file also getting stored in the same directory.
Is there any way to configure a separate folder inside my bucket to store only original images and rest of the images separately.
I also searched and learned that operating with multiple buckets is not yet possible with carrier-wave.
Kindly please direct me on this. Thanks in advance.
In my rails app I have used attachment_fu to upload images and stored it on s3.
I want to display these images on browser without retrieving it.
How can I display images by giving s3 path?
Thanks,
Jayashri
You just need to link to the correct S3 path for you images.
For public files they are in the format:
eg http://s3.amazonaws.com/[bucket]/[key]
If your content is private you'll need to create a signed url but all the SDKs and libraries make this easy.
Then use the url to display the images:
<img src="http://s3.amazonaws.com/mybucket/myfile.jpg" ... ></img>
It may help you to install the S3 organizer in Firefox so you can browser your directories. Then I believe the URL's are structured kinda like this...
http://BUCKET.s3.amazonaws.com/FOO/BAR.png
I'm writing a Rails application that serves files stored on a remote server to the end user.
In my case the files are stored on S3 but the user requests the file via the Rails-application (hiding the actual URL). If the file was on my servers local file-system, I could use the Apache header X-Sendfile to free up the Ruby process for other requests while Apache took over the task of sending the file to the client. But in my case - where the file is not on the local file-system, but on S3 - it seems that I'm forced to download it temporarily inside Rails before sending it to the client.
Isn't there a way for Apache to serve a "remote" file to the client that is not actually on the server it self. I don't mind if Apache has to download the file for this to work, as long as I don't have to tie up the Ruby process while it's going on.
Any suggestions?
Thomas, I have similar requirements/issues and I think I can answer your problem. First (and I'm not 100% sure you care for this part), hiding the S3 url is quite easy as Amazon allows you to point CNAMES to your bucket and use a custom URL instead of the amazon URL. To do that, you need to point your DNS to the correct amazon URL. When I set mine up it was similar to this: files.domain.com points to files.domain.com.s3.amazonaws.com. Then you need to create the bucket with the name of your custom URL (files.domain.com in this example). How to call that URL will be different depending on which gem you use, but a word of warning was that the attachment_fu plugin I was using was incorrectly sending me to files.domain.com/files.domain.com/name_of_file.... I couldn't find the setting to fix it, so a simple .sub method for the S3 portion of the plugin fixed it.
On to your other questions, to execute some rails code (like recording the hit in the db) before downloading you can simply do this:
def download
file = File.find(...
# code to record 'hit' to database
redirect_to 3Object.url_for(file.filename,
bucket,
:expires_in => 3.hours)
end
That code will still cause the file to be served by S3, but and still give you the ability to run some ruby. (Of course the above code won't work as is, you will need to point it to the correct file and bucket and my amazon keys are saved in a config file. The above is also using the syntax for the AWS::S3 gem - http://amazon.rubyforge.org/).
Second, the Content-Disposition: attachment issue is a bit more tricky. Hopefully, your situation is a bit more simple than mine and the following solution can work. Assuming the object 'file' (in this example) is the correct S3 object, you can set the disposition to attachment by
file.content_disposition = "attachment"
file.save
The above code can be executed after the file exists on the S3 server (unlike some other headers and permissions), which is nice and it can also be added when you upload the file (syntax depends on your plugin). I'm still trying to find a way to tell S3 to send it as an attachment and only when requested (not every time), and if you find that, please let me know your solution. I need to be able to sometimes download it and other times save embed images (for example) into HTML. I'm not using the above mentioned redirect but fortunately it seems that if you embed (such as a HTML image tag) a file with the content-disposition/attachment header, and the browser still displays the image normally (but I haven't throughly tested that across enough browsers to send it in the wild).
Hope that helps! Good luck.