On 22/08/13 17:00, Danny Ayers wrote:
Mostly through economic necessity, I finally got around to playing with the
G thing. As far as I can tell it should be possible to host instances of
Fuseki there (for free for a big starters, only $$$ if you start really
hitting the bandwidth/processing). Had to jump through a few silly hoops
(client issues - it's only Ubuntu, man) to get basic Python stuff going,
but the info is online.
Lazy says I don't repeat other's work. Found a thread [1] about packaging
Fuseki as a WAR, but it's inconclusive. Latest? Suggestions?
It could be a nice one, only the other day someone was asking how much an
endpoint costs. Does beg the question how you'd pay for it, if people found
it useful. Would like to know how much dbPedia has cost so far. But hosting
a vocab or a handful of triples (call it blog, links and hashes of cat
photos) shouldn't stretch.
Cheers,
Danny.
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jena-dev/201208.mbox/%3C1814529765.22594.1346425028681.JavaMail.jiratomcat@arcas%3E
Hi Danny,
As I recall, the state of JENA-201 is that the example patch puts the
configuration file inside the WAR file. That's OK sometimes but it
means the user has "some assembly required" and they have to put the WAR
file together.
I'd really like to see a fixed binary WAR file that the Jena project
provides. That needs finding the configuration file outside the WAR
file -- this is necessary for using TDB as well because the database
can't be inside the WAR file.
I guess we need to snaffle part of the file space like:
/usr/share/fuseki
for config file, any static pages and database files.
(or maybe a list of locations, and then the code plays "hunt the file
area" game on startup)
I'm not an expert in the current correct filesystem layouts for systems
(anyone got any advice? And for windows?)
Is having TDB DB files on the same area as the Fuseki config file and
static pages a good thing or a bad thing?
Andy
