Hi Mark,
On 05/11/14 15:22, Mark Feblowitz wrote:
I have a collection of various demonstrators that make use of
fuseki-server. Each requires essentially the same config file to
configure the various services, differing only in the tdb store
location.
Currently it’s either/or: use a config file or use --loc on the
command line, but not both.
A configuration file can have several definitions in it so there is not
one location to override with "--loc".
It would be great to be able to override the location from the
command line. In that way, I can provide a single config file along
with instructions for each demo that include a location override.
What I usually do is write a little wrapper to invoke Fuseki that takes
a template file, string-replaces some key string with the required
specific value, and runs with the instantiated template.
Interestingly, one can specify locations both using --loc and in the
config file; the store gets created, but rather than fuseki-server
using it, this message is displayed and fuseki-server terminates:
Bug.
Which location gets a store created? The --loc or the one in the config
file?
"Dataset specificed on the command line and also a configuration file
specificed.” (note misspelling of “specified”)
Fixed.
This happens whether the store spec is included in the config file or
when a config file is used but a location is not specified there.
(I also noticed that, contrary to the instructions page, referencing
a non-existing location from the command line triggers an error).
The script makes an explicit check (TDB auto-creates). Link to the
documentation you are reading here?
Would it be at all possible to have the --loc be interpreted as a
location override?
Tricky because there isn't one location.
I case you’re wondering why I don’t just provide a customized config
file for each demo, it’s because my employer’s attorneys won’t allow
us to distribute files that contain license restrictions. For the
conf file case, the line
# Licensed under the terms of http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
causes the proposed code distribution to be rejected. :-S As such, I
need to generate a patch file for each config file.
I'm afraid I don't understand your employer’s attorneys point here
because the Apache license was written to allow modification. It's one
of the rights of "open source".
And for the Apache license, you do not have to relicence your changes
under Apache - it's not viral/copyleft. You retain a free choice on
your changes (and retain copyright ownership).
You can write your own template from scratch. The license is for the
actual content in the example. That means you can look and rewrite.
(The license also covers reuse of IP unlike some other open source
licenses so that aspect is safe as well.)
Andy
