You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@clerezza.apache.org by Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> on 2019/06/07 10:17:45 UTC
RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
version 8
Dear Hasan
Again a late reply, I’m trying to improve.
See the outlook style inline responses.
Cheers,
Reto
From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:49 PM
To: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>; Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>
Cc: dev@clerezza.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8
Dear Reto, all
On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:51 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>> wrote:
Dear Hsan,
Sorry for not having replied earlier.
No problem...
Keeping the name of the maven artifacts as it is (api) is fine.
OK. But the package will be named o.a.clerezza instead of o.a.clerezza.api ?
[Reto Gmür] Yes I would name the java package o.a.clerezza for the classes in the api artifact
I’m trying to think of a one-word name for what is currently “api.impl”. The package contains abstract implementations, taking care of the implementation of “equals” (which means graph-isomorphism for the immutable graphs), some other utility classes that can be of used implementing the API as well as an in-memory implementation. What about an artifact “api-impl” with two package “mem” (for the in-memory implementations) and “abstract” (for the abstract classes and the rest)?
I am not sure whether this is a goo idea.
Does this mean that mem package does not have abstract classes defined there?
[Reto Gmür] Yes, the “a.o.clerezza.mem”-package would contain only the in-memory implementation which would base on the abstract implementation in “a.o.clerezza.abstract”. What bother me with api.impl is that to me a subpackage shouldn’t contradict the purpose of its superpackage and “api” is typically used to mean “not an actual implementation”.
I wasn’t aware of the consequences of CLEREZZA-1038. That one can no longer use GraphNodes (which to seems like a very fundamental feature of Clerezza) without depending on Scala seems like a massive drawback to me. The Scala features are nice but I think they should come at a price to those who don’t need them.
See my comments in JIRA issue.
Cheers
Hasan
Cheers,
Reto
From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 9:55 PM
To: dev@clerezza.apache.org<ma...@clerezza.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8
Dear Reto, all
I'd like to continue the discussion regarding naming and structure
You proposed to remove the .api package and have the types directly in a.o.clerezza
We need to have the types in a module. Currently, the module is called api.
Shall we also rename the module? For example model or clerezza ?
In that case we will have e.g.,
model/src/main/java/org/apache/clerezza/BlankNode.java
and the class is called org.apache.clerezza.BlankNode
Or shall we keep the name api for the module, but only have the package renamed
from o.a.clerezza.api to o.a.clerezza?
Furthermore, the folder api.impl becomes model.impl and api.utils becomes utils
What do you think?
Cheers
Hasan
On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>> wrote:
Hi Hasan, all,
I've just created a branch of the jena.* modules on https://github.com/clerezza and of https://github.com/linked-solutions/slds.
The refactoring brings some good improvements so I'd like to see this released as soon as possible.
In my opinion discussing the following points should nor block the release, but maybe we find a consensus easily so that we could incorporate this in the release
- Do we need the .api package? Couldn't these types be directly in o.a.clerezza? After all Clerezza is mainly an API
- I don't like the name .api.impl - Without the ".api" it would be a bit better, still ".impl" is just very unspecific.
- It's great the the method in GraphWriter to set the Serializer is now public. Now I can have the code:
GraphWriter graphWriter = new GraphWriter();
graphWriter.setSerializer(Serializer.getInstance());
Before I needed to make a subclass to access the protected methods. However it seems that graphWriter could access the default serializer using .getInstance itself, if none is set.
Cheers,
Reto
-----Original Message-----
From: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>>
Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM
To: dev@clerezza.apache.org<ma...@clerezza.apache.org>
Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8
Hi Hasan
Thanks a lot for the overview.
While I think it shouldn't be a general requirement to release everything together, in this case it looks like it would make things easier to use version 2.0.0 in all modules. WDYT?
Cheers,
Reto
-----Original Message-----
From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>>
Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM
To: dev@clerezza.apache.org<ma...@clerezza.apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8
Dear all
I had a discussion with Reto regarding the versioning of the modules.
Currently, all modules have version 8 after the refactoring. Reto suggested to keep previous version and increase it according to semantic versioning.
So, since all modules have a breaking change, I will increase the major number.
However, some modules are new or the result of a renaming.
We have these modules in the reunited branch:
* api (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-api 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
* api.impl (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-impl-utils
0.3-SNAPSHOT)
* ontologies (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.ontologies 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
* sparql (was sparql package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
* representation (was serializedform package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
* test.utils (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core.test 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
* dataset (was access package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
* api.utils (is a merge of org.apache.clerezza:rdf.utils 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT with org.apache.clerezza:rdf.scala.utils 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
* jaxrs.rdf.providers (was org.apache.clerezza:jaxrs.rdf.providers
1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
api will have version 1.0.0
api.impl will have version 1.0.0
ontologies will have version 2.0.0
sparql will have version 2.0.0
representation will have version 2.0.0
test.utils will have version 2.0.0
dataset will have version 2.0.0
api.utils will have version 2.0.0
jaxrs.rdf.providers will have version 2.0.0
What do you think?
Any objections?
Kind regards
Hasan
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:12 AM Hasan <ha...@apache.org>> wrote:
> Dear all
>
> The reunited branch of Clerezza (
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git) brings back the
> Clerezza common-rdf (
> https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza-rdf-core.git)
> into Clerezza (https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git).
>
> At the same time we refactor Clerezza to
> - remove a cyclic dependency between sparql and access package,
> - have all core functionalities in the top level modules instead of
> under a single rdf module,
> - rename some modules and packages to reflect better their functionality.
>
> The refactoring task is more or less complete.
>
> I think we should release the reunited branch in the near future as
> version 8 of master.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Kind regards
> Hasan
>
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
version 8
Posted by Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>.
Hi Hasan, all,
I'm having a bit too much going on right now and I would be glad if someone else could create the rlease candidate.
Cheers,
Reto
-----Original Message-----
From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
Sent: Friday, August 16, 2019 8:00 PM
To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
Cc: Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8
Hi Reto,
Yes, let's release this first and then make further improvements.
Would you mind to create a release candidate asap?
Many thanks in advance.
Cheers
Hasan
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 6:37 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> Hi Hasan
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> I think you really did a great work simplifying Clerezza and I hope
> this will be the start of a leaner and more active project. I'm not
> sure if its good to have the utils depend on scala libs. I suggest to
> try it out, we can still factor the scala things out if it turns out to be inconvenient.
>
> As you suggested I merged reunited down to master and I think it would
> be great to have a release.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:13 AM
> To: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
> Cc: Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>; dev@clerezza.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> branch version 8
>
> Dear Reto, all
>
> I have refactored api.impl in the reunited branch. Please take a look.
> @Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> Can we release this as the new
> master branch?
>
> Cheers
> Hasan
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Hasan
> >
> >
> >
> > Again a late reply, I’m trying to improve.
> >
> >
> >
> > See the outlook style inline responses.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Reto
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:49 PM
> > *To:* Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>; Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> > *Cc:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Reto, all
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:51 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hsan,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for not having replied earlier.
> >
> > No problem...
> >
> >
> >
> > Keeping the name of the maven artifacts as it is (api) is fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK. But the package will be named o.a.clerezza instead of
> > o.a.clerezza.api ?
> >
> > *[Reto Gmür] *Yes I would name the java package o.a.clerezza for the
> > classes in the api artifact
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I’m trying to think of a one-word name for what is currently “api.impl”.
> > The package contains abstract implementations, taking care of the
> > implementation of “equals” (which means graph-isomorphism for the
> > immutable graphs), some other utility classes that can be of used
> > implementing the API as well as an in-memory implementation. What
> > about an artifact “api-impl” with two package “mem” (for the
> > in-memory
> > implementations) and “abstract” (for the abstract classes and the rest)?
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not sure whether this is a goo idea.
> >
> > Does this mean that mem package does not have abstract classes
> > defined there?
> >
> >
> >
> > *[Reto Gmür] Yes, the “a.o.clerezza.mem”-package would contain only
> > the in-memory implementation which would base on the abstract
> > implementation in “a.o.clerezza.abstract”. What bother me with
> > api.impl is that to me a subpackage shouldn’t contradict the purpose
> > of
> its superpackage and “api”
> > is typically used to mean “not an actual implementation”.*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I wasn’t aware of the consequences of CLEREZZA-1038. That one can no
> > longer use GraphNodes (which to seems like a very fundamental
> > feature of
> > Clerezza) without depending on Scala seems like a massive drawback to me.
> > The Scala features are nice but I think they should come at a price
> > to those who don’t need them.
> >
> >
> >
> > See my comments in JIRA issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Hasan
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Reto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> > *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 9:55 PM
> > *To:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Reto, all
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd like to continue the discussion regarding naming and structure
> >
> > You proposed to remove the .api package and have the types directly
> > in a.o.clerezza
> >
> > We need to have the types in a module. Currently, the module is
> > called
> api.
> >
> > Shall we also rename the module? For example model or clerezza ?
> >
> > In that case we will have e.g.,
> >
> > model/src/main/java/org/apache/clerezza/BlankNode.java
> >
> > and the class is called org.apache.clerezza.BlankNode
> >
> > Or shall we keep the name api for the module, but only have the
> > package renamed
> >
> > from o.a.clerezza.api to o.a.clerezza?
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, the folder api.impl becomes model.impl and api.utils
> > becomes utils
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Hasan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hasan, all,
> >
> > I've just created a branch of the jena.* modules on
> > https://github.com/clerezza and of
> > https://github.com/linked-solutions/slds.
> >
> > The refactoring brings some good improvements so I'd like to see
> > this released as soon as possible.
> >
> > In my opinion discussing the following points should nor block the
> > release, but maybe we find a consensus easily so that we could
> > incorporate this in the release
> >
> > - Do we need the .api package? Couldn't these types be directly in
> > o.a.clerezza? After all Clerezza is mainly an API
> > - I don't like the name .api.impl - Without the ".api" it would be a
> > bit better, still ".impl" is just very unspecific.
> > - It's great the the method in GraphWriter to set the Serializer is
> > now public. Now I can have the code:
> > GraphWriter graphWriter = new GraphWriter();
> > graphWriter.setSerializer(Serializer.getInstance());
> > Before I needed to make a subclass to access the protected methods.
> > However it seems that graphWriter could access the default
> > serializer using .getInstance itself, if none is set.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM
> > To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> > Hi Hasan
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the overview.
> >
> > While I think it shouldn't be a general requirement to release
> > everything together, in this case it looks like it would make things
> > easier to use version 2.0.0 in all modules. WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM
> > To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > I had a discussion with Reto regarding the versioning of the modules.
> > Currently, all modules have version 8 after the refactoring. Reto
> > suggested to keep previous version and increase it according to
> > semantic versioning.
> > So, since all modules have a breaking change, I will increase the
> > major number.
> > However, some modules are new or the result of a renaming.
> >
> > We have these modules in the reunited branch:
> >
> > * api (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-api
> > 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> > * api.impl (was
> > org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-impl-utils
> > 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> > * ontologies (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.ontologies 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> > * sparql (was sparql package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> > 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> > * representation (was serializedform package in
> > org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> > * test.utils (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core.test 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> > * dataset (was access package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> > 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> > * api.utils (is a merge of org.apache.clerezza:rdf.utils
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT with org.apache.clerezza:rdf.scala.utils
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> > * jaxrs.rdf.providers (was org.apache.clerezza:jaxrs.rdf.providers
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> >
> > api will have version 1.0.0
> > api.impl will have version 1.0.0
> > ontologies will have version 2.0.0
> > sparql will have version 2.0.0
> > representation will have version 2.0.0 test.utils will have version
> > 2.0.0 dataset will have version 2.0.0 api.utils will have version
> > 2.0.0 jaxrs.rdf.providers will have version 2.0.0
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Any objections?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Hasan
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:12 AM Hasan <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all
> > >
> > > The reunited branch of Clerezza (
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git) brings back the
> > > Clerezza common-rdf (
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza-rdf-core.git)
> > > into Clerezza (https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git).
> > >
> > > At the same time we refactor Clerezza to
> > > - remove a cyclic dependency between sparql and access package,
> > > - have all core functionalities in the top level modules instead
> > > of under a single rdf module,
> > > - rename some modules and packages to reflect better their
> functionality.
> > >
> > > The refactoring task is more or less complete.
> > >
> > > I think we should release the reunited branch in the near future
> > > as version 8 of master.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Hasan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
version 8
Posted by Hasan <ha...@apache.org>.
Hi Reto,
Yes, let's release this first and then make further improvements.
Would you mind to create a release candidate asap?
Many thanks in advance.
Cheers
Hasan
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 6:37 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> Hi Hasan
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
>
> I think you really did a great work simplifying Clerezza and I hope this
> will be the start of a leaner and more active project. I'm not sure if its
> good to have the utils depend on scala libs. I suggest to try it out, we
> can still factor the scala things out if it turns out to be inconvenient.
>
> As you suggested I merged reunited down to master and I think it would be
> great to have a release.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:13 AM
> To: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
> Cc: Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>; dev@clerezza.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
> version 8
>
> Dear Reto, all
>
> I have refactored api.impl in the reunited branch. Please take a look.
> @Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> Can we release this as the new master
> branch?
>
> Cheers
> Hasan
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Hasan
> >
> >
> >
> > Again a late reply, I’m trying to improve.
> >
> >
> >
> > See the outlook style inline responses.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Reto
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:49 PM
> > *To:* Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>; Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> > *Cc:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Reto, all
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:51 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Hsan,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry for not having replied earlier.
> >
> > No problem...
> >
> >
> >
> > Keeping the name of the maven artifacts as it is (api) is fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > OK. But the package will be named o.a.clerezza instead of
> > o.a.clerezza.api ?
> >
> > *[Reto Gmür] *Yes I would name the java package o.a.clerezza for the
> > classes in the api artifact
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I’m trying to think of a one-word name for what is currently “api.impl”.
> > The package contains abstract implementations, taking care of the
> > implementation of “equals” (which means graph-isomorphism for the
> > immutable graphs), some other utility classes that can be of used
> > implementing the API as well as an in-memory implementation. What
> > about an artifact “api-impl” with two package “mem” (for the in-memory
> > implementations) and “abstract” (for the abstract classes and the rest)?
> >
> >
> >
> > I am not sure whether this is a goo idea.
> >
> > Does this mean that mem package does not have abstract classes defined
> > there?
> >
> >
> >
> > *[Reto Gmür] Yes, the “a.o.clerezza.mem”-package would contain only
> > the in-memory implementation which would base on the abstract
> > implementation in “a.o.clerezza.abstract”. What bother me with
> > api.impl is that to me a subpackage shouldn’t contradict the purpose of
> its superpackage and “api”
> > is typically used to mean “not an actual implementation”.*
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > I wasn’t aware of the consequences of CLEREZZA-1038. That one can no
> > longer use GraphNodes (which to seems like a very fundamental feature
> > of
> > Clerezza) without depending on Scala seems like a massive drawback to me.
> > The Scala features are nice but I think they should come at a price to
> > those who don’t need them.
> >
> >
> >
> > See my comments in JIRA issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Hasan
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Reto
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> > *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 9:55 PM
> > *To:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Reto, all
> >
> >
> >
> > I'd like to continue the discussion regarding naming and structure
> >
> > You proposed to remove the .api package and have the types directly in
> > a.o.clerezza
> >
> > We need to have the types in a module. Currently, the module is called
> api.
> >
> > Shall we also rename the module? For example model or clerezza ?
> >
> > In that case we will have e.g.,
> >
> > model/src/main/java/org/apache/clerezza/BlankNode.java
> >
> > and the class is called org.apache.clerezza.BlankNode
> >
> > Or shall we keep the name api for the module, but only have the
> > package renamed
> >
> > from o.a.clerezza.api to o.a.clerezza?
> >
> >
> >
> > Furthermore, the folder api.impl becomes model.impl and api.utils
> > becomes utils
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Hasan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Hasan, all,
> >
> > I've just created a branch of the jena.* modules on
> > https://github.com/clerezza and of
> > https://github.com/linked-solutions/slds.
> >
> > The refactoring brings some good improvements so I'd like to see this
> > released as soon as possible.
> >
> > In my opinion discussing the following points should nor block the
> > release, but maybe we find a consensus easily so that we could
> > incorporate this in the release
> >
> > - Do we need the .api package? Couldn't these types be directly in
> > o.a.clerezza? After all Clerezza is mainly an API
> > - I don't like the name .api.impl - Without the ".api" it would be a
> > bit better, still ".impl" is just very unspecific.
> > - It's great the the method in GraphWriter to set the Serializer is
> > now public. Now I can have the code:
> > GraphWriter graphWriter = new GraphWriter();
> > graphWriter.setSerializer(Serializer.getInstance());
> > Before I needed to make a subclass to access the protected methods.
> > However it seems that graphWriter could access the default serializer
> > using .getInstance itself, if none is set.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM
> > To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> > Hi Hasan
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the overview.
> >
> > While I think it shouldn't be a general requirement to release
> > everything together, in this case it looks like it would make things
> > easier to use version 2.0.0 in all modules. WDYT?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Reto
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM
> > To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> > branch version 8
> >
> > Dear all
> >
> > I had a discussion with Reto regarding the versioning of the modules.
> > Currently, all modules have version 8 after the refactoring. Reto
> > suggested to keep previous version and increase it according to
> > semantic versioning.
> > So, since all modules have a breaking change, I will increase the
> > major number.
> > However, some modules are new or the result of a renaming.
> >
> > We have these modules in the reunited branch:
> >
> > * api (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-api
> > 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> > * api.impl (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-impl-utils
> > 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> > * ontologies (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.ontologies 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> > * sparql (was sparql package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> > 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> > * representation (was serializedform package in
> > org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> > * test.utils (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core.test 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> > * dataset (was access package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> > 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> > * api.utils (is a merge of org.apache.clerezza:rdf.utils
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT with org.apache.clerezza:rdf.scala.utils
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> > * jaxrs.rdf.providers (was org.apache.clerezza:jaxrs.rdf.providers
> > 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> >
> > api will have version 1.0.0
> > api.impl will have version 1.0.0
> > ontologies will have version 2.0.0
> > sparql will have version 2.0.0
> > representation will have version 2.0.0 test.utils will have version
> > 2.0.0 dataset will have version 2.0.0 api.utils will have version
> > 2.0.0 jaxrs.rdf.providers will have version 2.0.0
> >
> > What do you think?
> > Any objections?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Hasan
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:12 AM Hasan <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Dear all
> > >
> > > The reunited branch of Clerezza (
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git) brings back the
> > > Clerezza common-rdf (
> > > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza-rdf-core.git)
> > > into Clerezza (https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git).
> > >
> > > At the same time we refactor Clerezza to
> > > - remove a cyclic dependency between sparql and access package,
> > > - have all core functionalities in the top level modules instead of
> > > under a single rdf module,
> > > - rename some modules and packages to reflect better their
> functionality.
> > >
> > > The refactoring task is more or less complete.
> > >
> > > I think we should release the reunited branch in the near future as
> > > version 8 of master.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Kind regards
> > > Hasan
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
version 8
Posted by Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>.
Hi Hasan
Sorry for the late reply.
I think you really did a great work simplifying Clerezza and I hope this will be the start of a leaner and more active project. I'm not sure if its good to have the utils depend on scala libs. I suggest to try it out, we can still factor the scala things out if it turns out to be inconvenient.
As you suggested I merged reunited down to master and I think it would be great to have a release.
Cheers,
Reto
-----Original Message-----
From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:13 AM
To: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
Cc: Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>; dev@clerezza.apache.org
Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8
Dear Reto, all
I have refactored api.impl in the reunited branch. Please take a look.
@Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> Can we release this as the new master branch?
Cheers
Hasan
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> Dear Hasan
>
>
>
> Again a late reply, I’m trying to improve.
>
>
>
> See the outlook style inline responses.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Reto
>
>
>
> *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:49 PM
> *To:* Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>; Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> *Cc:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> branch version 8
>
>
>
> Dear Reto, all
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:51 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Hsan,
>
>
>
> Sorry for not having replied earlier.
>
> No problem...
>
>
>
> Keeping the name of the maven artifacts as it is (api) is fine.
>
>
>
> OK. But the package will be named o.a.clerezza instead of
> o.a.clerezza.api ?
>
> *[Reto Gmür] *Yes I would name the java package o.a.clerezza for the
> classes in the api artifact
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m trying to think of a one-word name for what is currently “api.impl”.
> The package contains abstract implementations, taking care of the
> implementation of “equals” (which means graph-isomorphism for the
> immutable graphs), some other utility classes that can be of used
> implementing the API as well as an in-memory implementation. What
> about an artifact “api-impl” with two package “mem” (for the in-memory
> implementations) and “abstract” (for the abstract classes and the rest)?
>
>
>
> I am not sure whether this is a goo idea.
>
> Does this mean that mem package does not have abstract classes defined
> there?
>
>
>
> *[Reto Gmür] Yes, the “a.o.clerezza.mem”-package would contain only
> the in-memory implementation which would base on the abstract
> implementation in “a.o.clerezza.abstract”. What bother me with
> api.impl is that to me a subpackage shouldn’t contradict the purpose of its superpackage and “api”
> is typically used to mean “not an actual implementation”.*
>
>
>
>
>
> I wasn’t aware of the consequences of CLEREZZA-1038. That one can no
> longer use GraphNodes (which to seems like a very fundamental feature
> of
> Clerezza) without depending on Scala seems like a massive drawback to me.
> The Scala features are nice but I think they should come at a price to
> those who don’t need them.
>
>
>
> See my comments in JIRA issue.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Hasan
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 9:55 PM
> *To:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> branch version 8
>
>
>
> Dear Reto, all
>
>
>
> I'd like to continue the discussion regarding naming and structure
>
> You proposed to remove the .api package and have the types directly in
> a.o.clerezza
>
> We need to have the types in a module. Currently, the module is called api.
>
> Shall we also rename the module? For example model or clerezza ?
>
> In that case we will have e.g.,
>
> model/src/main/java/org/apache/clerezza/BlankNode.java
>
> and the class is called org.apache.clerezza.BlankNode
>
> Or shall we keep the name api for the module, but only have the
> package renamed
>
> from o.a.clerezza.api to o.a.clerezza?
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the folder api.impl becomes model.impl and api.utils
> becomes utils
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Hasan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hasan, all,
>
> I've just created a branch of the jena.* modules on
> https://github.com/clerezza and of
> https://github.com/linked-solutions/slds.
>
> The refactoring brings some good improvements so I'd like to see this
> released as soon as possible.
>
> In my opinion discussing the following points should nor block the
> release, but maybe we find a consensus easily so that we could
> incorporate this in the release
>
> - Do we need the .api package? Couldn't these types be directly in
> o.a.clerezza? After all Clerezza is mainly an API
> - I don't like the name .api.impl - Without the ".api" it would be a
> bit better, still ".impl" is just very unspecific.
> - It's great the the method in GraphWriter to set the Serializer is
> now public. Now I can have the code:
> GraphWriter graphWriter = new GraphWriter();
> graphWriter.setSerializer(Serializer.getInstance());
> Before I needed to make a subclass to access the protected methods.
> However it seems that graphWriter could access the default serializer
> using .getInstance itself, if none is set.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM
> To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> branch version 8
>
> Hi Hasan
>
> Thanks a lot for the overview.
>
> While I think it shouldn't be a general requirement to release
> everything together, in this case it looks like it would make things
> easier to use version 2.0.0 in all modules. WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM
> To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master
> branch version 8
>
> Dear all
>
> I had a discussion with Reto regarding the versioning of the modules.
> Currently, all modules have version 8 after the refactoring. Reto
> suggested to keep previous version and increase it according to
> semantic versioning.
> So, since all modules have a breaking change, I will increase the
> major number.
> However, some modules are new or the result of a renaming.
>
> We have these modules in the reunited branch:
>
> * api (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-api
> 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> * api.impl (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-impl-utils
> 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> * ontologies (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.ontologies 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> * sparql (was sparql package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> * representation (was serializedform package in
> org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> * test.utils (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core.test 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> * dataset (was access package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> * api.utils (is a merge of org.apache.clerezza:rdf.utils
> 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT with org.apache.clerezza:rdf.scala.utils
> 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> * jaxrs.rdf.providers (was org.apache.clerezza:jaxrs.rdf.providers
> 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
>
> api will have version 1.0.0
> api.impl will have version 1.0.0
> ontologies will have version 2.0.0
> sparql will have version 2.0.0
> representation will have version 2.0.0 test.utils will have version
> 2.0.0 dataset will have version 2.0.0 api.utils will have version
> 2.0.0 jaxrs.rdf.providers will have version 2.0.0
>
> What do you think?
> Any objections?
>
> Kind regards
> Hasan
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:12 AM Hasan <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > The reunited branch of Clerezza (
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git) brings back the
> > Clerezza common-rdf (
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza-rdf-core.git)
> > into Clerezza (https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git).
> >
> > At the same time we refactor Clerezza to
> > - remove a cyclic dependency between sparql and access package,
> > - have all core functionalities in the top level modules instead of
> > under a single rdf module,
> > - rename some modules and packages to reflect better their functionality.
> >
> > The refactoring task is more or less complete.
> >
> > I think we should release the reunited branch in the near future as
> > version 8 of master.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Hasan
> >
> >
>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
version 8
Posted by Hasan <ha...@apache.org>.
Dear Reto, all
I have refactored api.impl in the reunited branch. Please take a look.
@Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> Can we release this as the new master
branch?
Cheers
Hasan
On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
> Dear Hasan
>
>
>
> Again a late reply, I’m trying to improve.
>
>
>
> See the outlook style inline responses.
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Reto
>
>
>
> *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:49 PM
> *To:* Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>; Reto Gmür <re...@apache.org>
> *Cc:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
> version 8
>
>
>
> Dear Reto, all
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 19, 2019 at 5:51 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Hsan,
>
>
>
> Sorry for not having replied earlier.
>
> No problem...
>
>
>
> Keeping the name of the maven artifacts as it is (api) is fine.
>
>
>
> OK. But the package will be named o.a.clerezza instead of o.a.clerezza.api
> ?
>
> *[Reto Gmür] *Yes I would name the java package o.a.clerezza for the
> classes in the api artifact
>
>
>
>
>
> I’m trying to think of a one-word name for what is currently “api.impl”.
> The package contains abstract implementations, taking care of the
> implementation of “equals” (which means graph-isomorphism for the immutable
> graphs), some other utility classes that can be of used implementing the
> API as well as an in-memory implementation. What about an artifact
> “api-impl” with two package “mem” (for the in-memory implementations) and
> “abstract” (for the abstract classes and the rest)?
>
>
>
> I am not sure whether this is a goo idea.
>
> Does this mean that mem package does not have abstract classes defined
> there?
>
>
>
> *[Reto Gmür] Yes, the “a.o.clerezza.mem”-package would contain only the
> in-memory implementation which would base on the abstract implementation in
> “a.o.clerezza.abstract”. What bother me with api.impl is that to me a
> subpackage shouldn’t contradict the purpose of its superpackage and “api”
> is typically used to mean “not an actual implementation”.*
>
>
>
>
>
> I wasn’t aware of the consequences of CLEREZZA-1038. That one can no
> longer use GraphNodes (which to seems like a very fundamental feature of
> Clerezza) without depending on Scala seems like a massive drawback to me.
> The Scala features are nice but I think they should come at a price to
> those who don’t need them.
>
>
>
> See my comments in JIRA issue.
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Hasan
>
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Reto
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 9:55 PM
> *To:* dev@clerezza.apache.org
> *Subject:* Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
> version 8
>
>
>
> Dear Reto, all
>
>
>
> I'd like to continue the discussion regarding naming and structure
>
> You proposed to remove the .api package and have the types directly in
> a.o.clerezza
>
> We need to have the types in a module. Currently, the module is called api.
>
> Shall we also rename the module? For example model or clerezza ?
>
> In that case we will have e.g.,
>
> model/src/main/java/org/apache/clerezza/BlankNode.java
>
> and the class is called org.apache.clerezza.BlankNode
>
> Or shall we keep the name api for the module, but only have the package
> renamed
>
> from o.a.clerezza.api to o.a.clerezza?
>
>
>
> Furthermore, the folder api.impl becomes model.impl and api.utils becomes
> utils
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Cheers
>
> Hasan
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Hasan, all,
>
> I've just created a branch of the jena.* modules on
> https://github.com/clerezza and of
> https://github.com/linked-solutions/slds.
>
> The refactoring brings some good improvements so I'd like to see this
> released as soon as possible.
>
> In my opinion discussing the following points should nor block the
> release, but maybe we find a consensus easily so that we could incorporate
> this in the release
>
> - Do we need the .api package? Couldn't these types be directly in
> o.a.clerezza? After all Clerezza is mainly an API
> - I don't like the name .api.impl - Without the ".api" it would be a bit
> better, still ".impl" is just very unspecific.
> - It's great the the method in GraphWriter to set the Serializer is now
> public. Now I can have the code:
> GraphWriter graphWriter = new GraphWriter();
> graphWriter.setSerializer(Serializer.getInstance());
> Before I needed to make a subclass to access the protected methods.
> However it seems that graphWriter could access the default serializer using
> .getInstance itself, if none is set.
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Reto Gmür <re...@factsmission.com>
> Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM
> To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> Subject: RE: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
> version 8
>
> Hi Hasan
>
> Thanks a lot for the overview.
>
> While I think it shouldn't be a general requirement to release everything
> together, in this case it looks like it would make things easier to use
> version 2.0.0 in all modules. WDYT?
>
> Cheers,
> Reto
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hasan <ha...@apache.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM
> To: dev@clerezza.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch
> version 8
>
> Dear all
>
> I had a discussion with Reto regarding the versioning of the modules.
> Currently, all modules have version 8 after the refactoring. Reto
> suggested to keep previous version and increase it according to semantic
> versioning.
> So, since all modules have a breaking change, I will increase the major
> number.
> However, some modules are new or the result of a renaming.
>
> We have these modules in the reunited branch:
>
> * api (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-api 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> * api.impl (was org.apache.clerezza.commons-rdf:commons-rdf-impl-utils
> 0.3-SNAPSHOT)
> * ontologies (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.ontologies 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> * sparql (was sparql package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> * representation (was serializedform package in
> org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> * test.utils (was org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core.test 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> * dataset (was access package in org.apache.clerezza:rdf.core
> 1.0.2-SNAPSHOT)
> * api.utils (is a merge of org.apache.clerezza:rdf.utils 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT
> with org.apache.clerezza:rdf.scala.utils 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
> * jaxrs.rdf.providers (was org.apache.clerezza:jaxrs.rdf.providers
> 1.0.1-SNAPSHOT)
>
> api will have version 1.0.0
> api.impl will have version 1.0.0
> ontologies will have version 2.0.0
> sparql will have version 2.0.0
> representation will have version 2.0.0
> test.utils will have version 2.0.0
> dataset will have version 2.0.0
> api.utils will have version 2.0.0
> jaxrs.rdf.providers will have version 2.0.0
>
> What do you think?
> Any objections?
>
> Kind regards
> Hasan
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 11:12 AM Hasan <ha...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Dear all
> >
> > The reunited branch of Clerezza (
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git) brings back the
> > Clerezza common-rdf (
> > https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza-rdf-core.git)
> > into Clerezza (https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf/clerezza.git).
> >
> > At the same time we refactor Clerezza to
> > - remove a cyclic dependency between sparql and access package,
> > - have all core functionalities in the top level modules instead of
> > under a single rdf module,
> > - rename some modules and packages to reflect better their functionality.
> >
> > The refactoring task is more or less complete.
> >
> > I think we should release the reunited branch in the near future as
> > version 8 of master.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Kind regards
> > Hasan
> >
> >
>
>