Hi Reto, Thanks for your reply, definitely more constructive.
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Reto Bachmann-Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > ...Things have been discussed quite extensively in the orginal thread [1] on > enabling security.... My impression of that thread was that it was mostly you and Adrian "against" Fabian, Rupert and myself. Rereading it I see that Fabian summarized as "We agreed to activate the security features by default in the full launcher", so my impression was not 100% correct. > ...The motivation for enabling security by default (activate the smoke > detector) was that developer see, when their code doesn't work reasonably > in a secure environment such as in an application server... Ok, I fully agree with that from the perspective of someone writing components for Stanbol. That's a different perspective than someone using Stanbol, especially when aiming to just experiment with it with a minimum of fuss. > ...You're taking about your impression without > bringing any evidence supporting your claim... Hence the [POLL] - that's meant to a reality check of my impressions. > ...The sentence about being "back > to Stanbol as it worked before" suggest that Stanbol is no longer working, > for this I'd prefer to have issues in Jira rather than this... Recent user questions show that Stanbol is not working as well as it did for the "user wants to just play with this with a minimum of fuss" scenario. Let's see what others think - for now my suggestion is to rename the "full" launcher to "secure" and have all the other launchers use -no-security as the default (which might already be the case). -Bertrand 1. http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/stanbol-dev/201211.mbox/%3CCALvhUEXNFcvNroS=r40ct37d2h+90zvt8x_p8x_gj6mde7+...@mail.gmail.com%3E
