New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Cloudinary module for image storage #4207

Closed
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
from

Conversation

Projects
None yet
4 participants
@jwbenson

jwbenson commented Sep 28, 2014

The Wordpress to Ghost plugin suggests using Cloudinary as a easy way to migrate images to Ghost. If people want to use Cloudinary in conjunction with Ghost moving forward there's currently no support for that.

Example config and module in this pull request.

note: requires cloudinary-npm npm install cloudinary

@javorszky

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@javorszky

javorszky Sep 28, 2014

Member

Hi @jwbenson. Thank you for this. The reason the Cloudinary was chosen in the WP Ghost plugin was that I had to find a way to upload all the attachments in WordPress to the cloud, so the <img src="">s referenced an absolute URL that did not live on the previous blog's URL. Ghost stores images elsewhere than in the wp-contents/uploads/**/**/ folders.

That said once the data is in Ghost, users can take advantage of the local storage. Adding Cloudinary support is awesome, although it will best live as an App, once we've finished the Apps API. This, and the S3 storage will probably be among the very first ones to be published. :)

Member

javorszky commented Sep 28, 2014

Hi @jwbenson. Thank you for this. The reason the Cloudinary was chosen in the WP Ghost plugin was that I had to find a way to upload all the attachments in WordPress to the cloud, so the <img src="">s referenced an absolute URL that did not live on the previous blog's URL. Ghost stores images elsewhere than in the wp-contents/uploads/**/**/ folders.

That said once the data is in Ghost, users can take advantage of the local storage. Adding Cloudinary support is awesome, although it will best live as an App, once we've finished the Apps API. This, and the S3 storage will probably be among the very first ones to be published. :)

@jwbenson

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@jwbenson

jwbenson Sep 28, 2014

No problems. I want to migrate my Wordpress blog to Ghost running on AppFog but AppFog doesn't have persistent file storage and wanted to knock down that barrier.

Sounds like the Apps API may be coming soon so I'll just hold off until then. Good luck!

jwbenson commented Sep 28, 2014

No problems. I want to migrate my Wordpress blog to Ghost running on AppFog but AppFog doesn't have persistent file storage and wanted to knock down that barrier.

Sounds like the Apps API may be coming soon so I'll just hold off until then. Good luck!

@halfdan

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@halfdan

halfdan Sep 28, 2014

Member

Just wanted to drop this:

@jwbenson thanks for the contribution! It's really amazing and will make a great app!

Member

halfdan commented Sep 28, 2014

Just wanted to drop this:

@jwbenson thanks for the contribution! It's really amazing and will make a great app!

@ErisDS

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ErisDS

ErisDS Sep 28, 2014

Member

@jwbenson thank you for this awesome PR :) As others have explained, this kind of addition definitely belongs in an app, buuuuuuuuut we really need some help to get storage Apps off the ground. There is an open issue to do with this: #2852 - which is all about laying the ground work to be able to provide config for a different storage module (from this issue you'll see there is already a filestorage config option). Some steps have been taken recently in turning the storage module into a proper class, but there's still work to be done.

Perhaps you could help us get a bit closer? May it would help if I broke that issue down into smaller tasks so we could take steps in the right direction?

Member

ErisDS commented Sep 28, 2014

@jwbenson thank you for this awesome PR :) As others have explained, this kind of addition definitely belongs in an app, buuuuuuuuut we really need some help to get storage Apps off the ground. There is an open issue to do with this: #2852 - which is all about laying the ground work to be able to provide config for a different storage module (from this issue you'll see there is already a filestorage config option). Some steps have been taken recently in turning the storage module into a proper class, but there's still work to be done.

Perhaps you could help us get a bit closer? May it would help if I broke that issue down into smaller tasks so we could take steps in the right direction?

@ErisDS

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@ErisDS

ErisDS Sep 29, 2014

Member

Going to close this as it won't be merged in it's current state but I'm very interested in moving the file storage abstraction work forward ;)

Member

ErisDS commented Sep 29, 2014

Going to close this as it won't be merged in it's current state but I'm very interested in moving the file storage abstraction work forward ;)

@ErisDS ErisDS closed this Sep 29, 2014

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment