You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@stanbol.apache.org by Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com> on 2012/03/07 08:49:29 UTC
Stanbol Default Configuration (was: Stanbol on Karaf?)
Hi all,
Note this question from A. Soroka:
On 06.03.2012, at 23:07, ajs6f@virginia.edu wrote:
> Some questions I feel emboldened to ask: would it perhaps be better for that "startup config" to be associated with the EntityHub service itself (and not the launchers), or would that be too direct a dependence? I can certainly imagine wanting to use a Clerezza Yard instead, or a remote Solr instance, or some other arrangement, but might it not be better to have everything the EntityHub service needs come with the bundlelist/feature repository itself?
Maybe an own "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" module that uses [1] to provide the default configuration for the {component}.
This would have the following advantages against the current solution (adding all the defaults to the 'resources/config' folder of the launcher)
* It would allow us to manage the default config within an component (e.g. enhancer, entityhub, contenthub …).
* the defaults-module could be added to the bundle list of that component
* users that do not want to use the default config could just exclude the "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" bundle and provide their own configuration.
* uninstalling "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" would cause the default configuration to be removed.
* we would no longer need to duplicate the defaults for the different launchers.
WDYT
Rupert
[1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/trunk/commons/installer/bundleprovider/README.md
Re: Stanbol Default Configuration (was: Stanbol on Karaf?)
Posted by "ajs6f@virginia.edu" <aj...@virginia.edu>.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Let me add even another piece of support: such default config modules would be the perfect place to in-line document some of the bits and pieces of configuration, such as "blessed" directories, URL segments, etc. While the OSGi config and supporting Felix Web console gear is really wonderful, some people will always be more comfortable reading through properties files and the like, and having them brought out clearly can make for easier automated installation.
- ---
A. Soroka
Software & Systems Engineering :: Online Library Environment
the University of Virginia Library
On Mar 7, 2012, at 2:49 AM, Rupert Westenthaler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Note this question from A. Soroka:
>
> On 06.03.2012, at 23:07, ajs6f@virginia.edu wrote:
>
>> Some questions I feel emboldened to ask: would it perhaps be better for that "startup config" to be associated with the EntityHub service itself (and not the launchers), or would that be too direct a dependence? I can certainly imagine wanting to use a Clerezza Yard instead, or a remote Solr instance, or some other arrangement, but might it not be better to have everything the EntityHub service needs come with the bundlelist/feature repository itself?
>
> Maybe an own "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" module that uses [1] to provide the default configuration for the {component}.
>
> This would have the following advantages against the current solution (adding all the defaults to the 'resources/config' folder of the launcher)
>
> * It would allow us to manage the default config within an component (e.g. enhancer, entityhub, contenthub …).
> * the defaults-module could be added to the bundle list of that component
> * users that do not want to use the default config could just exclude the "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" bundle and provide their own configuration.
> * uninstalling "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" would cause the default configuration to be removed.
> * we would no longer need to duplicate the defaults for the different launchers.
>
> WDYT
> Rupert
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/trunk/commons/installer/bundleprovider/README.md
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG/MacGPG2 v2.0.17 (Darwin)
Comment: GPGTools - http://gpgtools.org
iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJPV20KAAoJEATpPYSyaoIk18IIAKr9LWgOT7l3sVm8Nvq4i18F
2AZlyhfXQrrANM7C8fS+4pka3VjpNiXyM4qZTjJi7u/PgWIpUCluSlM+dM7YpMcR
kD5hT4ixN68MEbvZYFe2ptTL0JzfjYXmSsS8KaGvpWsholeFIHO5OenR3OxB4Ag6
xBj55KiwC3yLRtaFcc+/KXkjVLZBW5V3jOyTL1T9WgCG9dmwIPvs9ln4vV0SO30Z
G3GnhDGzr9UobIKfMr1JB34bsX7Fp950FMUg+Q4W5un4g/uUAPGVAAnZSZ7X43Uz
/+R2kuqOtQ9p27Ms/MPZU9LALOXAuDRmGpxTcHK62cVu3H0BRdJYz2kZtrcwD8Y=
=uIQt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Re: Stanbol Default Configuration
Posted by Rupert Westenthaler <ru...@gmail.com>.
created an issue for that
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-529
I will start to migrate the entityhub to the new system in the coming weeks.
best
Rupert
On 07.03.2012, at 09:43, Ali Anil Sinaci wrote:
> Hi,
>
> +1 for default configuration bundles for each component.
>
> Anil.
>
> On 03/07/2012 09:49 AM, Rupert Westenthaler wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Note this question from A. Soroka:
>>
>> On 06.03.2012, at 23:07, ajs6f@virginia.edu wrote:
>>
>>> Some questions I feel emboldened to ask: would it perhaps be better for that "startup config" to be associated with the EntityHub service itself (and not the launchers), or would that be too direct a dependence? I can certainly imagine wanting to use a Clerezza Yard instead, or a remote Solr instance, or some other arrangement, but might it not be better to have everything the EntityHub service needs come with the bundlelist/feature repository itself?
>> Maybe an own "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" module that uses [1] to provide the default configuration for the {component}.
>>
>> This would have the following advantages against the current solution (adding all the defaults to the 'resources/config' folder of the launcher)
>>
>> * It would allow us to manage the default config within an component (e.g. enhancer, entityhub, contenthub …).
>> * the defaults-module could be added to the bundle list of that component
>> * users that do not want to use the default config could just exclude the "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" bundle and provide their own configuration.
>> * uninstalling "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" would cause the default configuration to be removed.
>> * we would no longer need to duplicate the defaults for the different launchers.
>>
>> WDYT
>> Rupert
>>
>> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/trunk/commons/installer/bundleprovider/README.md
>
Re: Stanbol Default Configuration
Posted by Ali Anil Sinaci <a....@gmail.com>.
Hi,
+1 for default configuration bundles for each component.
Anil.
On 03/07/2012 09:49 AM, Rupert Westenthaler wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Note this question from A. Soroka:
>
> On 06.03.2012, at 23:07, ajs6f@virginia.edu wrote:
>
>> Some questions I feel emboldened to ask: would it perhaps be better for that "startup config" to be associated with the EntityHub service itself (and not the launchers), or would that be too direct a dependence? I can certainly imagine wanting to use a Clerezza Yard instead, or a remote Solr instance, or some other arrangement, but might it not be better to have everything the EntityHub service needs come with the bundlelist/feature repository itself?
> Maybe an own "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" module that uses [1] to provide the default configuration for the {component}.
>
> This would have the following advantages against the current solution (adding all the defaults to the 'resources/config' folder of the launcher)
>
> * It would allow us to manage the default config within an component (e.g. enhancer, entityhub, contenthub …).
> * the defaults-module could be added to the bundle list of that component
> * users that do not want to use the default config could just exclude the "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" bundle and provide their own configuration.
> * uninstalling "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" would cause the default configuration to be removed.
> * we would no longer need to duplicate the defaults for the different launchers.
>
> WDYT
> Rupert
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/trunk/commons/installer/bundleprovider/README.md
Re: Stanbol Default Configuration (was: Stanbol on Karaf?)
Posted by Fabian Christ <ch...@googlemail.com>.
Hi,
it sounds reasonable to me to keep the configuration within a
component and allow flexible customization of that config.
+1
Am 7. März 2012 08:49 schrieb Rupert Westenthaler
<ru...@gmail.com>:
> Hi all,
>
> Note this question from A. Soroka:
>
> On 06.03.2012, at 23:07, ajs6f@virginia.edu wrote:
>
>> Some questions I feel emboldened to ask: would it perhaps be better for that "startup config" to be associated with the EntityHub service itself (and not the launchers), or would that be too direct a dependence? I can certainly imagine wanting to use a Clerezza Yard instead, or a remote Solr instance, or some other arrangement, but might it not be better to have everything the EntityHub service needs come with the bundlelist/feature repository itself?
>
> Maybe an own "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" module that uses [1] to provide the default configuration for the {component}.
>
> This would have the following advantages against the current solution (adding all the defaults to the 'resources/config' folder of the launcher)
>
> * It would allow us to manage the default config within an component (e.g. enhancer, entityhub, contenthub …).
> * the defaults-module could be added to the bundle list of that component
> * users that do not want to use the default config could just exclude the "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" bundle and provide their own configuration.
> * uninstalling "o.a.s.{component}.defaults" would cause the default configuration to be removed.
> * we would no longer need to duplicate the defaults for the different launchers.
>
> WDYT
> Rupert
>
> [1] http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/incubator/stanbol/trunk/commons/installer/bundleprovider/README.md
--
Fabian
http://twitter.com/fctwitt