Yes, I also thought along these lines, this simplifies customization a lot. And +1 to Jörn comment below about security.
Aliaksandr On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 3:03 PM, [email protected] < [email protected]> wrote: > To bundle models inside a jar file would be nice also because of the > customization factories. While using maven we can make a model depend on > external jar that provides the factory. > > > On Fri, Apr 27, 2012 at 9:08 AM, Jörn Kottmann <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 04/27/2012 01:44 PM, Aliaksandr Autayeu wrote: > > > >> Ah, I see, it is for the stuff you do in sandbox. Looks very reasonable > to > >> me. But I would test for resource loading - we use jar artifacts to move > >> our models along with the library, but now they're manually handled. > With > >> this new method it'll be easier. > >> > > > > Placing models in jars and them somehow distribute them seems > > to become a new trend. > > > > Its actually quite amazing how many possibilities you then suddenly > > get. > > > > - The jar might be hosted in local repository. Then it can be referenced > > by URL like this: jar:http://www.foo.com/bar/** > > baz.jar!/com/foo/models/ner/**person.bin< > http://www.foo.com/bar/baz.jar!/com/foo/models/ner/person.bin> > > , > > or http:t//www.foo.com/person.bin**. > > > > - The jar could contain a blueprint xml and then the models will > > automatically > > made available in an OSGi environment. > > > > - The jar can be retrieved during build time (e.g. via maven) and put > > along with > > some other code in a distribution. > > > > - Models which need dependencies to run can ship them in the jar. > > When using maven, they can depend on jars which contain the extension. > > Especially handy if we provide even more extensibility e.g. a MALLET > > support. > > > > Jörn > > >
