-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
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
False statement in the docs about INSTALLED_APPS #11
Comments
Hi I will into this in the weekend. |
Hi @moorchegue it was planned to go into the code, but never happened, I will leave it as is and implement it. did you do something about it ? |
No, not really, I'm not even sure how to implement it, gotta read Backblaze docs… |
@royendgel, check out this another approach: moorchegue@b212588 I took out authorization request from the constructor to speed up application start and made it sort of lazyish. It doesn't really reuse a token for multiple instances as initially planned, I guess. Should I update the docs and make a PR? Not sure if you'd like this solution or not, so asking first. |
@moorchegue I tried to contact you via your fork, but I cannot create a new "Issue".
https://www.backblaze.com/b2/docs/b2_download_file_by_id.html Is this supported by the plugin? |
I have. However it's been a while, so I don't remember clearly and I probably haven't checked that scenario, sorry. There is a chance private buckets just don't work. I'm using the fork in production for several months now with public buckets only. It's stable enough, but every once in a while Backblaze service itself gets unstable and I add more and more defensive code. I'll need private buckets as well eventually and if it's not sorted out by then I'll get back to you with a PR. |
This makes this package really slow. We've fixed it by adjusting authorization code and returning it to Django differently: |
There's no such thing as
b2_storage.authorise
in the code, so adding it to INSTALLED_APPS causes an Exception. Was it planned but not implemented? Was it implemented differently but not updated in the docs?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: