Ok, perfect. While we further check over the configuration content part, I've implemented a sample that wraps the ContentItem in a ContentItem bag which contains also a configuration dictionary: - ContentItemBag: https://github.com/insideout10/stanbol-facade/blob/master/stanbol-facade-api/src/main/java/io/insideout/stanbol/facade/models/ContentItemBag.java
The wrapper is fed via the enhancementJobManager: - https://github.com/insideout10/stanbol-facade/blob/master/stanbol-facade-api/src/main/java/io/insideout/stanbol/facade/services/TaskService.java This is a sample service which dumps the configuration parameters: - https://github.com/insideout10/stanbol-facade/blob/master/stanbol-facade-api/src/main/java/io/insideout/stanbol/facade/engines/ContentItemBagSpyEngine.java In the above examples the content to be lifted and and the configuration parameters are encapsulated in a JSON request (converted to a TaskRequest) such as this: { "configuration": { "configuration.parameter.1": "value.1", "configuration.parameter.2": "value.2" }, "mimeType": "application/rdf+xml", "content": " ... " } The above can of course be changed as soon as we define the content part for the per-call configuration of engines. BR, David On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:51 PM, Fabian Christ <[email protected] > wrote: > Hi, > > maybe we could define a specific content part [1] for such config > information. This way we do not have to change the interface at all. It is > just a matter of filling a to be defined "config content part". > > Then we have to write a simple engine that takes config params from an > incoming request and writes this information into the config content part. > Engines can look up the config per request from the config content part. > > Maybe Rupert can say more about this as he has defined the content part > infrastructure. > > [1] > https://stanbol.apache.org/docs/trunk/components/enhancer/contentitem.html > > > 2012/12/10 David Riccitelli <[email protected]> > > > Thanks Fabian, > > > > Yes, I am thinking in the context of the engines that we're contributing, > > but it could be useful for the existing engines as well. > > > > Currently the engines only rely on a provided ContentItem instance for > the > > enhancement process (computeEnhancements(ContentItem ci)): maybe the > > ContentItem interface could be extended to include a reference to a > > configuration map. > > > > Engines that support custom configurations will look-up from this map for > > per-call configurations. This would not affect existing engines, but > would > > enable them to use this feature in the future. > > > > What do you think? > > > > David > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Fabian Christ < > > [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > are you referring to existing engines in Stanbol or are you using your > > own > > > ones? > > > > > > At the moment we do not support such a concept of per request configs. > At > > > least the current engines do not look in the ContentItem for their > > config. > > > > > > We have another requirement to make it possible to pass existing > metadata > > > into the request and send text plus existing metadata to Stanbol. Maybe > > > such config per request could be a similar case. > > > > > > Anyway, currently it is not yet supported out of the box IIRC. > > > > > > Best, > > > - Fabian > > > > > > > > > 2012/12/10 David Riccitelli <[email protected]> > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > We have a need to allow passing some engine configuration parameters > in > > > > each call. > > > > > > > > For example, we might want for one call to have confidence score > > 0.5, > > > and > > > > for another call > 0.9 (just making up the numbers). > > > > > > > > Is this feasible now? Can the per-call configuration parameters be > > bound > > > to > > > > the ContentItem? If yes, how? > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > David > > > > > > > > -- > > > > David Riccitelli > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************** > > > > InsideOut10 s.r.l. > > > > P.IVA: IT-11381771002 > > > > Fax: +39 0110708239 > > > > --- > > > > LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli > > > > Twitter: ziodave > > > > --- > > > > Layar Partner Network< > > > > > > > > > > http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************** > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Fabian > > > http://twitter.com/fctwitt > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > David Riccitelli > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************** > > InsideOut10 s.r.l. > > P.IVA: IT-11381771002 > > Fax: +39 0110708239 > > --- > > LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli > > Twitter: ziodave > > --- > > Layar Partner Network< > > > http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1 > > > > > > > > ******************************************************************************** > > > > > > -- > Fabian > http://twitter.com/fctwitt > -- David Riccitelli ******************************************************************************** InsideOut10 s.r.l. P.IVA: IT-11381771002 Fax: +39 0110708239 --- LinkedIn: http://it.linkedin.com/in/riccitelli Twitter: ziodave --- Layar Partner Network<http://www.layar.com/publishing/developers/list/?page=1&country=&city=&keyword=insideout10&lpn=1> ********************************************************************************
