On 19.07.12 13:06, Fabian Christ wrote: Hi Fabian,
> Stanbol in its current stage is not multitenant. It is much more like > a multi-instance architecture. ok that's the impression we had. > Maybe you should have a look at the components that you may need for > your project and then we have to think about ways to make them > multitenant. The service architecture is nice for cloud scenarios but > for the multitenant aspect we have to think about the used storage > solutions of different components. As I said - at the moment each > component solves this on its own. For example, we do not have a > central storage service or layer. Jup so we would need some form of generic interface which the components could implement to abstract that part. > This is an open-source project and if you would like to become part of > the community, everything is possible for Stanbol. Making Stanbol > ready for cloud-based scenarios is definitely something that many > people would be interested in. Yeah we do have some resources as well so the idea is that we would contribute code as well but this would clearly be easier if you guys are motivated to support us and work on it as well as time permits :) For sure it would make sense to discuss the design implications with the team first so we all agree on how it should be done. Also I'm not the one which is capable of doing this on a coding level, that would be done by someone else in the team. > Sounds like a plan, but is not supported that way by Stanbol, yet. Yeah in the end we would have to define some requirements and this is what I can think of right now. >> Transaction Management: >> - is there currently some form of transaction management in Stanbol? >> Could not find much documentation about this. > > Not that I know. ok we will think about that as well. > We have a WAR packaging for Stanbol that is in use by some people. ok good > For the ongoing discussion, we should always keep in mind that Stanbol > is not one single system. It is a composition of components and the > user can select which components she would like to use. As a > consequence of this, there is not much of an overall architecture in > Stanbol. Each top level component, like Enhancer, Entityhub, > Contenthub, etc. offers a RESTful API. That's what all have in common. > So for your questions we have to look at each component separately. ok so identifying with which components we would start is definitely important. What would be the way to go for extending the current components to introduce our requirements? Should we fork it first or do you prefer other ways of working on it? thanks Adrian
