I don't really see the difference between the "repository" and "my files". They seem to have exactly the same functionalities
My Files is a unique area in Alfresco where you can create and store content, and no other Alfresco users can access it.
So rather than saving content on your laptop or tablet, you can save it in Alfresco and still keep it private until it's ready to be shared.
You can access the My Files area from anywhere in Alfresco by clicking My Files at the top of the screen.Refer this Documentation
The Repository displays all the Alfresco Content Services content that you have access to, including content of all sites that you're a member of. Refer this Documentation
Adding more : Check the same thing without admin user.You will get to know the difference.
Related
I'm running RStudio server on an instance of Google Compute Engine. My RScript creates a map file that I would like to include in a public web site.
The file gets created OK.
Separately, I've also created a bucket and can upload images to it, viewing them from a web browser with a URL like this: https://storage.googleapis.com/...
Still, I'm confused as to how to make the image created by the R script viewable by a browser. Does the image have to find its way over to a bucket? Or is it viewable where it is somehow?
There are infinite possible solutions depending on what you want to implement and how much time you want to spend on it (and if you are the only one accessing or not and if you can share the file or they are sensible), therefore I will provide you some hints:
The easiest one is to upload the file to a Google Storage Bucket, then you can control who can access that link (a single user, a domain or everyone), it could be access by accessing with the browser with the following link:
https://storage.googleapis.com/namebucket/folder1/folder2/nome_file
There is no graphical interface, you will need to know the address to download the file (at the end it is enough to know the name). You will need to create a small script to make sure every time a image is available to upload it to the bucket and to make it public available. Or you can decide to make he bucket itself public.
The second possible solution is to do the same but to create an html page REALLY simple, basically a list of links to the files in the bucket, each time you upload a file to the bucket you update the html file. At least you would solve the issue regarding the knowing the names and you can navigate it a bit.
<html><body>
This is a link
</body></html>
If you need to expose the resources to more people, or you would like to have something more "nice" graphically you will have to spend more time and build a decent frontend. You can follow thousands of different approaches.
You have really thousands of possibilities.
P.S.
Documentation regarding uploading a file to bucket.
Documentation regarding managing access to file stored.
Notice that in this way depending on the extension of the file you want to share the browser behaves differently, a .txt, a .jpg are shown an .exe is downloaded.
I am new to Alfresco. Using version 5.0.d.
I am developing CMIS based application code to index and access documents into Alfresco repository.
All these documents that our application would be storing is mainly by/for our application.
So probably a limited set of users of our clients might want to manage them through Share UI.
When I go into Alfresco Share interface, I see the concept of sites.
I decided to create a site for our application.
Then inside the site, I am able to create folders
Underneath the site, I also see a document library location, inside which as well I can create folders
I am having a hard time choosing or deciding on an approach.
In order to access the 'Sample' folder that is created directly under the 'testSite' site, CMIS (Java) code looks like this:
Folder folder = (Folder) cmisSession.getObjectByPath("/Sites/testSite/Sample");
In order to access the 'TestFolder' folder that is created under the document library of the site:'testSite', CMIS (Java) code looks like this:
Folder folder = (Folder) cmisSession.getObjectByPath("/Sites/testSite/documentLibrary/TestFolder");
Code does not look any different other than the path...
Can you tell me, why would anyone would prefer to organize their folders, one way or the other?
I also do not know if this is the best way, or if there is any other way, in CMIS API to access the folders underneath a site...
You do not necessarily need to use sites to store your contents.
Sites are designed as collaboration spaces. When you use a site you get "for free":
Simplified (but sometimes not flexible enough) role based access permissions. The idea is that a site manager decides, at the site level, the role of each user. Permissions can be applied to roles instead of groups or users. This helps to simplify the administration of permissions, but sometimes is not flexible enough. Using the API or accessing the folders of the sites in the "repository view" (see for example http://docs.alfresco.com/4.2/concepts/share-repodoclib.html), you can set more granular permissions, but doing it somehow breaks the "simplified" role based permissions.
Collaboration pages: document library, blog, calendar, data lists, etc...
A site dashboard that can have a different configuration for each site and site specific dashlets
Site visibility: public, moderate, private; and the function to invite users and manage users at site level
Probably other functionality that do not come to my mind right now
As I mentioned, the "document library" is one of the pages in a site. It is designed to collaborate on contents. If you are using sites, use the document library for contents on which users will collaborate. These contents are stored in the path:
/Sites/site-name/documentLibrary/
You can definitely create contents directly in /Sites/site-name/ but it won't be visible in the "document library" page of the site. This is what Alfresco does to store other type of contents associated with a site such as: data lists, calendar events, discussions, etc...
If your repository is accessed only with a custom application by CMIS, I am not sure that you will get any benefit using sites.
I wouldn't use it if you would end up with a single site.
I would suggest to use it, if you think that it can be useful to "invite" users to sites and assign permissions based on roles.
I`m looking for some solution which will make my directory with pictures secured.
In my page only Administrator have permission to upload the pictures. User have opportunity only to view a picture for products. I want to make directory more secured. I want to make it difficult to download all pictures from some kind of scripts.
For now I tried with .htpaccess and .htpasswd it work fine but when User trying to see the product page(where are available pictures form secured folder) htpaccess is requiring a username and password.
Is it possible to enter username and password to this directory from server side when user is watching the product page. And in case that he open a link of the picture in new window then user name and password is required?
Do you know some other solutions?
Cheers
Don't store the images in your web folder where everyone can access them. Instead, store them outside of the web path (for example in app/data or so) and use a symfony controller to deliver them. This way you can use the symfony security component.
In addition to good answer by #Pierre, you can use a filesystem abstraction layer. I'd recommend using Gaufrette. To integrate it with Symfony, you could use KnpGaufretteBundle.
It will give you way more flexibility as
using external filesystems (ex. Amazon S3, FTP, sFTP)
use Symfony Security component or ACL.
Everything depends on your need and your approach in the project. However, if you need some flexibility, I'd recommend try it out.
I am creating a module of my website where I can display images in "albums", much like facebook.
For storing/grouping images, I planned on having them in the ~/Images folder inside my application's structure. Is this considered bad practice, or will it open up my application to any security vulnerabilities? I read that you shouldn't place things like this in your site structure, but I don't quite understand why (or if this is the same scenario).
Therefore, albums would be grouped as...
~/Images/album1, ~/Images/album2, etc.
Is this an appropriate thing to put inside App_Data, or is there a more 'preferred' location for things such as this?
Sorry if this is a trivial question.
All three of the answers here are good. There is no preferred storage for uploaded images, it's all up to you based on your requirements.
As Henhealg says, don't store them in App_Data. If you put them here, they will not be accessible from the web. For example, the following would not render an image even if the path was correct:
<img src="/App_Data/album1/image1.png" alt="" />
One option is to have your local ~/Albums directory mapped to a different folder accessible to the web server, like sylon says. This keeps the images out of the directory where your MVC app is served from, but "pretends" that they are there. If you control IIS and can set up a file share, this may be an option for you.
Also, like XToro says, storing them in a SQL database is an option. Storing here is flexible because you don't have to worry about folder or file name collisions. Multiple users can each have albums and files with the same names, yet they won't collide because they don't occupy filesystem space the same way normal files do. If security is important to your app (not showing photos or albums to unauthorized users), having them in a SQL table makes this fairly easy.
However if you are not as worried about security or file naming collisions, you can just as easily store them in your MVC app's ~/Images or ~/Albums directory.
Depending on the performance of your server, you may want to consider storing your images into a database using BLOB
https://dev.mysql.com/doc/refman/5.0/en/blob.html
Images can be easily sorted, organized, categorized without the need to worry about folder structures and folder permissions. Simply use your PHP/AJAX/language of your choice to provide the authentication and choose which files you wish to display.
This way, each image can have it's own fields (as many as you want) like the user who posted it, the original filename, a caption, the album it belongs in etc etc
Since you can easily as a user check where the images are stored once the application is in production, where you store the images does not matter as much as what permissions you set to the folder(s) that the images are stored in.
I would use file system as you are saying but store it outside of the application folder as you are saying it is bad practice. I agree with this - when i do deployments I prefer to delete everything and drop in the new code and keep the web.config file that way I always have a clean environment and it is much easier to get started from scratch without having to worry about what I need to back up or bring from previous install.
I would use IIS to map the directory into my solution wherever I desire from a network share storage or whereever you want to safely keep your albums.
e.g. D:\MySafeStorage\Albums\ map to your website's ~\Albums\ when your website is in C:\inetpub\MyWebSite\
I've a classified ads system on ASP.NET/c#/MS SQL, and I'm trying to figure out where to store the images that people upload when placing an ad. The ad itself is being stored in a SQL server database.
The images are now being stored in a subfolder of my webapp. It seems to work fine, however I only recently discovered a big problem. Everytime a user deletes an ad, the attached images are to be deleted as well including the folder they reside in. This leads to a restart of the asp.net application. I searched internet and found that restarting the web-app is actually intended behaviour when a subfolder is being deleted.
Obviously, I need to fix this. But how to do that? Where can I store images in such a way that:
I can remove these images including the folders they are stored in?
I can acces them using a URL (the images need to be shown in the
webpages)
Without getting the web-app being
restarted?
Any feedback is appreciated!
Paul
See this question Deleting a directory results in application restart
An other alternative would be to store the images in the DB instead.
Another option would be to put the images in a directory completely unrelated to the web site then serve the images through a scripted page or handler. It would make all of your image urls look like mydomaincom/serveimage.aspx?imageid=323422, but unless you're counting on the name somewhere that really shouldn't matter much. Obviously it would require a modification to the page that serves the images in the first place as well, but if sub directories of this unrelated directory are deleted IIS really shouldn't care at all.
maybe you can store the images in SQL (check at the filestream feature in this case)
if not, I suppose you have somewhere in a business facade class, a service class or wherever you want, a methode "DeleteAd".
This method will have to do two things :
-delete the sql data
-delete the file image
also, you may change the image store to another folder, outside the web app. You will probably end with writing a custom handler (myhandler.ashx?fileid=XX) to serve the files, or a custom route and control if you use MVC.