<html><body><div style="font-family: arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: 10pt; color: #000000"><div>Hi Vikas, </div><div data-marker="__QUOTED_TEXT__"><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #000; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;" data-mce-style="border-left: 2px solid #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #000; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir="ltr"><div>>> I planned on setting up the workflow on how to give these options to the user but I couldn’t decide and hence proceeded with implementing dropbox storage API</div><br><div>I believe, the way we should approach is the same, we planed to use for FTP storage: configuration of dropbox account should be in handsof server administrator. Client should get access to dropbox directory OR file stored in dropbox directory directly. Returning folder is ok for now - DropBox does not currently fit in the OWS and GIS world seamlessly - that is the price we need to pay. </div></div></blockquote><div>Using the Python API you are able to share the file directly. Any reason against it? Sharing a folder could be a good option if there is one folder for each process that is running, but only useful if there are more than one output file. But the WPS client need to handle accessing a shared dropbox folder. Personally I would share the each file directly. <br></div><div><br data-mce-bogus="1"></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Jonas</div></div></div></body></html>