stanbol-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rupert Westenthaler <>
Subject Re: Stanbol Default Configuration
Date Wed, 07 Mar 2012 10:43:54 GMT
created an issue for that

I will start to migrate the entityhub to the new system in the coming weeks. 


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, 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
>> 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.
>> Rupert
>> [1]

View raw message