> Apologies for the delayed response - I stupidly decided to fall down a
> hole on Monday evening and break my foot and I've just come out of
> hospital. :(

> Tobi - about the images: my main root object has up to 5 images.  The root
> has a child which also has an image and there are typically 50 of these
> children per root.  So, about 60 images per root currently.  We are going
> to add a feature to store more images in the near future, which will add up
> to about about another 200 images per root.  I want to store the images in
> the database.  That just makes it easier to backup and restore and is a lot
> cleaner to code, imo.  I also process the images to reduce their size when
> importing into the application.  The main motivation for this is that we
> have a data sharing facility and I want to ensure that the size of the
> exchanged files remains as small as possible.  I've also added a reference
> back to your original Gist from mine too :)

> Itamar - I really think that this should be a core feature and not rely on
> a KB article.  You should be able to run Smuggler - or similar - in
> embedded mode without having to enable HTTP.  Using HTTP when Raven is
> running on the user's desktop throws up issues about user permission
> levels.  Yes, I know there is support for this in Raven, but in my scenario
> I specifically do not want to enable access through Studio as I want to
> prevent the user from accessing the data easily.  How do I add a feature
> request for this?

> On Tuesday, 8 May 2012 23:00:27 UTC+1, Tobi wrote:

>> On 08.05.2012 21:03, Sean Kearon wrote:

>> > Tobi: using your RavenDB Dumper as a basis, I've added attachment
>> > capabilities

>> Great!

>> > (I have a lot of images in my app).

>> How many?

>> I'm going to add support for product images soon, but haven't decided yet
>> if it's better to store them as attachments or in the file system.

>> > Oren + team: for my scenario - applying OAuth locally and closing down
>> > HTTP access - using Smuggler OOTB isn't really an option as far as I
>> can
>> > see. To have a fully embedded Smuggler API similar to what Tobi has
>> > skinned up would be really great for us embedded-on-the-desktop guys.

>> +1 Having import/export in the client-API would certainly be nice.

>> Tobias

On Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:05:06 UTC+1, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> A pull request

> If you can get it to work with the current smuggler application that would
> be ideal, otherwise adding this to Raven.Client.Embedded seems like the
> best bet

> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Sean Kearon wrote:

>> Apologies for the delayed response - I stupidly decided to fall down a
>> hole on Monday evening and break my foot and I've just come out of
>> hospital. :(

>> Tobi - about the images: my main root object has up to 5 images.  The
>> root has a child which also has an image and there are typically 50 of
>> these children per root.  So, about 60 images per root currently.  We are
>> going to add a feature to store more images in the near future, which will
>> add up to about about another 200 images per root.  I want to store the
>> images in the database.  That just makes it easier to backup and restore
>> and is a lot cleaner to code, imo.  I also process the images to reduce
>> their size when importing into the application.  The main motivation for
>> this is that we have a data sharing facility and I want to ensure that the
>> size of the exchanged files remains as small as possible.  I've also added
>> a reference back to your original Gist from mine too :)

>> Itamar - I really think that this should be a core feature and not rely
>> on a KB article.  You should be able to run Smuggler - or similar - in
>> embedded mode without having to enable HTTP.  Using HTTP when Raven is
>> running on the user's desktop throws up issues about user permission
>> levels.  Yes, I know there is support for this in Raven, but in my scenario
>> I specifically do not want to enable access through Studio as I want to
>> prevent the user from accessing the data easily.  How do I add a feature
>> request for this?

>> On Tuesday, 8 May 2012 23:00:27 UTC+1, Tobi wrote:

>>> On 08.05.2012 21:03, Sean Kearon wrote:

>>> > Tobi: using your RavenDB Dumper as a basis, I've added attachment
>>> > capabilities

>>> Great!

>>> > (I have a lot of images in my app).

>>> How many?

>>> I'm going to add support for product images soon, but haven't decided
>>> yet
>>> if it's better to store them as attachments or in the file system.

>>> > Oren + team: for my scenario - applying OAuth locally and closing down
>>> > HTTP access - using Smuggler OOTB isn't really an option as far as I
>>> can
>>> > see. To have a fully embedded Smuggler API similar to what Tobi has
>>> > skinned up would be really great for us embedded-on-the-desktop guys.

>>> +1 Having import/export in the client-API would certainly be nice.

>>> Tobias

> Tobi - the export facility was your work, which I just benefited from (very
> happily too ;) ).  I am wondering if you want to do the pull request.  If
> not, I'm happy to give it a try too.

On Saturday, May 12, 2012 6:12:14 AM UTC-4, Sean Kearon wrote:

> Itamar - I really think that this should be a core feature and not rely on
> a KB article.  You should be able to run Smuggler - or similar - in
> embedded mode without having to enable HTTP.  Using HTTP when Raven is
> running on the user's desktop throws up issues about user permission
> levels.  Yes, I know there is support for this in Raven, but in my scenario
> I specifically do not want to enable access through Studio as I want to
> prevent the user from accessing the data easily.  How do I add a feature
> request for this?

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Chris Marisic <ch...@marisic.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 6:12:14 AM UTC-4, Sean Kearon wrote:

>> Itamar - I really think that this should be a core feature and not rely
>> on a KB article.  You should be able to run Smuggler - or similar - in
>> embedded mode without having to enable HTTP.  Using HTTP when Raven is
>> running on the user's desktop throws up issues about user permission
>> levels.  Yes, I know there is support for this in Raven, but in my scenario
>> I specifically do not want to enable access through Studio as I want to
>> prevent the user from accessing the data easily.  How do I add a feature
>> request for this?

> I don't use embedded but i certainly agree with Sean that this feature
> should be support OOTB.

On Monday, 14 May 2012 16:00:57 UTC+1, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

> Yes, waiting on a pull request

> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Chris Marisic wrote:

>> On Saturday, May 12, 2012 6:12:14 AM UTC-4, Sean Kearon wrote:

>>> Itamar - I really think that this should be a core feature and not rely
>>> on a KB article.  You should be able to run Smuggler - or similar - in
>>> embedded mode without having to enable HTTP.  Using HTTP when Raven is
>>> running on the user's desktop throws up issues about user permission
>>> levels.  Yes, I know there is support for this in Raven, but in my scenario
>>> I specifically do not want to enable access through Studio as I want to
>>> prevent the user from accessing the data easily.  How do I add a feature
>>> request for this?

>> I don't use embedded but i certainly agree with Sean that this feature
>> should be support OOTB.

> Itamar

> Having taken a look at this, can I ask for some design guidance?  The
> situation so far is:

> To look at putting non-HTTP import/export functionality into
> Raven.Smuggler, I need to use the following parts of DocumentDatabase:

> GetIndexes()
>  GetDocuments()
> PutIndex()
> PutStatic();
> Batch()
>  GetAttachments()
> GetStatic()
> TransactionalStorage.Batch()

> However, Raven.Smuggler currently takes a dependency only on
> Raven.Abstractions.  Adding a depencency to Raven.Database does not seem
> suitable to me.  So, the options are:

>    1. Put the non-HTTP import/export functionality into
>    Raven.Client.Embedded.
>    2. Add an abstraction to Raven.Abstractions to allow access to the
>    above API.

> The benefits of the first are that it's simple and the non-HTTP
> import/export does mainly relate to that namespace.  The disadvantage is
> that there would then be two sections of code that handled import/export.

> Adding an abstraction does really seem to be the best way to go to keep
> the API clean.  If you agree, can you suggest how this could be approached?

> On Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:05:06 UTC+1, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

>> A pull request

>> If you can get it to work with the current smuggler application that
>> would be ideal, otherwise adding this to Raven.Client.Embedded seems like
>> the best bet

On Thursday, 17 May 2012 00:58:49 UTC+1, Oren Eini wrote:

> Since when running in embedded mode, you are already doing this inside
> your app, is there a reason not to add this to the Raven.Database project?

> On Wed, May 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM, Sean Kearon  wrote:

>> Itamar

>> Having taken a look at this, can I ask for some design guidance?  The
>> situation so far is:

>> To look at putting non-HTTP import/export functionality into
>> Raven.Smuggler, I need to use the following parts of DocumentDatabase:

>> GetIndexes()
>>  GetDocuments()
>> PutIndex()
>> PutStatic();
>> Batch()
>>  GetAttachments()
>> GetStatic()
>> TransactionalStorage.Batch()

>> However, Raven.Smuggler currently takes a dependency only on
>> Raven.Abstractions.  Adding a depencency to Raven.Database does not seem
>> suitable to me.  So, the options are:

>>    1. Put the non-HTTP import/export functionality into
>>    Raven.Client.Embedded.
>>    2. Add an abstraction to Raven.Abstractions to allow access to the
>>    above API.

>> The benefits of the first are that it's simple and the non-HTTP
>> import/export does mainly relate to that namespace.  The disadvantage is
>> that there would then be two sections of code that handled import/export.

>> Adding an abstraction does really seem to be the best way to go to keep
>> the API clean.  If you agree, can you suggest how this could be approached?

>> On Saturday, 12 May 2012 19:05:06 UTC+1, Itamar Syn-Hershko wrote:

>>> A pull request

>>> If you can get it to work with the current smuggler application that
>>> would be ideal, otherwise adding this to Raven.Client.Embedded seems like
>>> the best bet