You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@clerezza.apache.org by Hasan <ha...@apache.org> on 2019/07/29 23:12:42 UTC
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, 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
> >
> >
>
>