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, [email protected] 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
>
