Integrate with Services API

Arg, I *hate* that you can't edit the first post in an Issue! To re-iterate:

At this time this is NOT an Image Field service - it is a service that exposes all variations of an Image node's images (including ones created by ImageCache) when given the node id of a valid Image node provided by the Image module.

Anyway, I re-wrote it slightly in the form here on Drupal.org (stupid idea) and made a slight mistake - please disregard the first post and use this:

/**
* Implementation of hook_perm().
*/
function image_service_perm() {
  return array('get image files');
}

/**
* Implementation of hook_service().
*/
function image_service_service() {
  return array(
    array(
      '#method'   => 'image.getImages',
      '#callback' => 'image_service_get_images',
      '#access callback' => 'image_service_get_images_access',
      '#args'     => array(
        array(
          '#name'         => 'nid',
          '#type'         => 'int',
          '#description'  => t('A node id.'),
        ),
      ),
      '#return'   => 'struct',
      '#help'     => t('Returns the images attached to a node.')
    ),
  );
}

/**
* when given a node id returns any image data and images
* assigned to that node
*
* @param $nid
* integer representing the nid of either an image or a node with
* attached images
*
* @return
* array containing images by size for this node
*/
function image_service_get_images($nid) {
  if (module_exists('image')) {
    $image_node = node_load($nid);
    if ($image_node->type == 'image') {
      foreach($image_node->images as $type => $path) {
        $fid = db_result(db_query("SELECT fid FROM {image} WHERE nid = %d AND image_size = '%s'", $nid, $type));
        $file = db_fetch_object(db_query("SELECT * FROM {files} WHERE fid = %d AND filename = '%s'", $fid, $type));
        $fullpath = $_SERVER['DOCUMENT_ROOT'] . base_path() . $path;
        $binaryfile = fopen($fullpath, 'rb');
        $send[$type]['file'] = base64_encode(fread($binaryfile, filesize($fullpath)));
        $send[$type]['filename'] = $file->filename;
        $send[$type]['uid'] = $file->uid;
        $send[$type]['filemime'] = $file->filemime;
        $send[$type]['filesize'] = $file->filesize;
        $send[$type]['status'] = $file->status;
        $send[$type]['timestamp'] = $file->timestamp;
        preg_match_all('/.*\/images\/(.*)/', $path, $matches);
        $send[$type]['fullname'] = $matches[1][0];
        fclose($binaryfile);
      }
      return $send;
    } else {
      return array(0 => 'node was not of type image');
    }
  } else {
    return array(0 => 'image module not enabled on remote service provider');
  }
}

/**
* access callback function for the image service
*/
function image_service_get_images_access() {
  return user_access('get image files');
}

Ps - I note from looking at the changes made to my file service before it was committed that there are better ways to do things in the above code. If you like, I can update this and attach files to properly reflect the correct structure for a new service module. But it might take me a few weeks to find a hole in my schedule to do it. The above code will work, but the approach used in the file_service module in 6.x-0.13 is more elegant. If anyone wants to refactor this before I get a chance to, feel free! =)

Actually, it occurs to me that since the Image module is not core, this service ought really to be part of the Image module package, not the Services module package. Thoughts? If the maintainers of Services agree, please feel free to switch this to the latest 6.x dev version of Image instead. =)

Hi Marc,

I think I'll create a separate project, because the Image module team never responded. =(

That project could work with ImageAPI and ImageCache too... I'll have a think about possible methods and maybe start a new issue to discuss it.

I don't think it makes sense to include ImageField, as it is an extension of FileField so not really specifically image related - more just a set of special handlers for FileField files. A FileField service might be nice, which should include ImageField support, but that's a different project again! I don't know if anyone else is looking at this? My team at Defaqto have written something transferring images via web services using ImageField, so I'll ask them to see if it could/should be a separate module. At the moment it's knitted in to Content Distribution.

Greg

Ps - Views will be core for D7, I hope! If not, then surely for D8, so makes sense to include it... =)

It's in comment #1 of this thread! ;-)

You just have to copy and paste it to a image_service.module file (and obviously provide an image_service.info file). I thought I'd raised it with the Image module guys, but I can't find the issue right now. Weird! It needs to be part of their package. Feel free to raise an issue over there about this module and point them to this thread.

Don't know what you mean by an upload service? There *is* a file service in the Services module. I wrote the first version.

Then that's the existing node.save method. Don't know how it works with CCK, but AFAIK it just invokes the node module's functions and CCK hooks in to them, so it should work fine.

Let's move it to your queue then. =)

ImageField would need an entirely different method. Better to write a separate ImageField service. Frankly, it would be easier - the full file objects would already be available in the selected node. You'd just have to ask for select node *and* field name and remember to loop through for multiple values, if applicable.

But that's a whole other conversation and a whole other module. I'm amazed no one's written it yet. It wouldn't take long.

Setting to needs review. Suspect original code will still work.

Seems no one needs it any more. What's the future of the Image module's image storage anyway? Is their intent to make it use file fields since they are in the core of Drupal 7? If so, there'll probably be nothing to do, as the Services API/Views integration will already spit out base64 encoded file fields (I think - and if it doesn't it would be a much more sensible place to divert efforts to). Could bat this back to the Services team as a feature request against fields integration for Drupal 7.