Comments on: AEM and Google Cloud Vision – Impressions to Implementation https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/ Expert Digital Insights Fri, 05 Jan 2018 18:59:02 +0000 hourly 1 By: Dan Klco https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/#comment-17654 Fri, 05 Jan 2018 18:59:02 +0000 https://blogs.perficient.com/digexplatforms/?p=3760#comment-17654 In reply to Saurabh Gupta.

Hi @Saurabh,
Based on the error message it looks like you’re running into a SSL Cert issue, this StackOverflow post may point you in the right direction:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/9619030/resolving-javax-net-ssl-sslhandshakeexception-sun-security-validator-validatore

]]>
By: Saurabh Gupta https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/#comment-17653 Fri, 15 Dec 2017 05:24:21 +0000 https://blogs.perficient.com/digexplatforms/?p=3760#comment-17653 Hi Shannon,
Thanks for posting this great blog and code package.
I have used the code which you have shared and I created one trial account in google cloud vision.
I have changed the credential in JSON file but i am getting the below error:
Error: javax.net.ssl.SSLHandshakeException: sun.security.validator.ValidatorException: PKIX path building failed: sun.security.provider.certpath.SunCertPathBuilderException: unable to find valid certification path to requested target
Any kind of help will be appreciable 🙂
Thanks

]]>
By: Shannon Sumner https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/#comment-17652 Fri, 27 May 2016 18:28:01 +0000 https://blogs.perficient.com/digexplatforms/?p=3760#comment-17652 In reply to Nono Junang.

Hi Nono,
Please see our implementation here:
https://blogs.perficient.com/files/2016/05/visionapi.zip
You will need to edit the VisionApiServiceAccount.json file and insert your own project_id, private_key_id, private_key, client_email, and client_id.
Thanks,
Shannon Sumner

]]>
By: Nono Junang https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/#comment-17651 Tue, 17 May 2016 09:29:16 +0000 https://blogs.perficient.com/digexplatforms/?p=3760#comment-17651 Thanks Shannon for your reply.
I looked at the pricing and that seems quite reasonable. Let’s see what the pricing model for Adobe Smart Tags will be.
Any chance that you can share your implementation?
Regards,

]]>
By: Shannon Sumner https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/#comment-17650 Mon, 16 May 2016 15:05:16 +0000 https://blogs.perficient.com/digexplatforms/?p=3760#comment-17650 In reply to Nono Junang.

Hi Nono,
As far as I know, Google;s Cloud Vision API does not restrict the amount of calls made through a key. Anything over a thousand inquiries a month will cost a bit. Pricing can be found here: https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/pricing.
It does look like a batch mode is supported up to 4MB (https://cloud.google.com/vision/docs/image-best-practices#google_cloud_storage_image_files). The larger the image, the more Google will be able to accurately label the image. Since images usually run pretty big – batch processing is not realistic.
We extended the existing DAM workflow instead of creating a custom workflow for expediency sake. The process has evolved since this blog post. We now use an event listener to observe when a node of type “nt:file” is added to the DAM. We then check the size of this asset. If the size is under 4MB – we send the file to Google’s Cloud Vision API. If it is over 4MB, we send a rendition of the asset.

]]>
By: Nono Junang https://blogs.perficient.com/2016/04/29/aem-and-googles-cloud-vision-api-impressions-to-implementation/#comment-17649 Mon, 02 May 2016 01:54:49 +0000 https://blogs.perficient.com/digexplatforms/?p=3760#comment-17649 Very nice.
Does the Google Cloud Vision API restricts the amount of calls made through a key?
Any batch mode supported?
Also why extend the existing DAM Workflow instead of creating a custom workflow with custom launcher.
But overall very nice!

]]>