Thanks Andy S. On 24 August 2013 13:06, Andy Bunce <[email protected]> wrote:
> You might try the Openshift free option [1]. I have not used used it with > Fuseki [2] but have used it successfully for other small java based > projects. > > Many thanks Andy B, this is great! I found it very straightforward to get an instance of Fuseki running on OpenShift [3]. What delighted me further, my current project [4] )which will act as a bit of middleware in front of a SPARQL store) uses node.js, and OpenShift also supports this. It took quite a bit of tweaking of my code (haven't fed the changes back into github yet) but I was able to get a live instance of that running too [5], against the Fuseki over there. Cheers, Danny. > [1] https://www.openshift.com/products/online > [2] https://github.com/semfact/openshift-fuseki [3] http://fuseki-hyperdata.rhcloud.com/ [4] https://github.com/danja/seki [5] http://seki-hyperdata.rhcloud.com/welcome > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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< > 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 > > > > > -- http://dannyayers.com http://webbeep.it - text to tones and back again
