You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@jena.apache.org by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> on 2013/04/12 19:02:57 UTC
Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
tried not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
detail of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
think it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
release.
Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when might
it be ready?)
Andy
Coordinated SDB 1.3.6 / Jena 2.10.1 release?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 12/04/13 18:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
How do people feel like doing a coordinated SDB 1.3.6 release? There
have been no legal related changes so the minimal checking needed is to
confirm the release process is executed properly.
I've been a bit surprised by the level of usage. Having the version of
Jena it depends on drift too far from current may cause some of these
users some problems.
Andy
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 12/04/13 18:02, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>
Please close off JIRA for tracking purposes.
Generally, I don't find "resolved" a helpful state. There is limited
use for wanting the person reporting to check something but that's
uncommon. If you think the JIRA is addressed, test cases added etc and
no further work or comments is needed, please close them. It can be
reopened if needed.
"Close" should be the default; leaving "resolved" for special cases.
Andy
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Simon Helsen <sh...@ca.ibm.com>.
I just updated to the latest from SVN and ran a build cycle on windows
without problems with the units. I haven't done any significant testing in
our platform suite and I'm not sure I'll get to it, but I am also in favor
of a release as the bug fixes are worthwhile for us and we were about to
kick of an approval process for 2.10.0 (so I rather change that to 2.10.1)
thanks
Simon
From:
Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
To:
dev@jena.apache.org,
Date:
04/25/2013 03:03 PM
Subject:
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Fixing JENA-440 (query timeouts) has taken longer than I'd hoped, then I
was away for a couple of days. But the timeout changes are something
I'm quite keen that is tested properly.
Done now. I'll send email to users@ ASAP after forcing a deployment to
the snapshot repository. The announcement will need JENA-440 and
JENA-439 (wrong HTTP status code on timeouts) pointing out as worthy of
testing.
Everyone - this doesn't close the codebase to fixes - what other JIRA to
aim for (but treat as blocking),
Andy
On 25/04/13 18:49, Rob Vesse wrote:
> Andy
>
> So are we all OK with moving towards a next release?
>
> Other than finishing up some more tests for JENA-445 (the OpAsQuery with
> sub-queries bug) I don't have anything else that I want to get in the
> release, the release already includes a variety of bug fixes that I need
> to close out some internal bugs here so getting it sooner rather than
> later would be nice
>
> I can send out the email to the lists if you like?
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On 4/19/13 11:06 AM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca>
wrote:
>
>> I ran all of our Turtle tests against it and it performed well, no
>> complaints on any of the functionality. We had to change white space
>> handling slightly in our test cases and it seems a little more
permissive,
>> a double semi-colon after a statement used to cause a syntax failure
and
>> is
>> now silently passed. The new behaviour seems correct to me so no
>> complaints.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Owens
>> <stephen.owens@thoughtwire.ca
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>>> 2.10.1
>>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>>> I'll
>>> try to do that over the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>>>
>>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>>>
>>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>>>
>>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>>> odd
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for now
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>>>> tried
>>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>>> detail
>>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> be ready?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Stephen Owens*
>>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> *
>> *
>> *Stephen Owens*
>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 25/04/13 19:58, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> Fixing JENA-440 (query timeouts) has taken longer than I'd hoped, then I
> was away for a couple of days. But the timeout changes are something
> I'm quite keen that is tested properly.
>
> Done now. I'll send email to users@ ASAP after forcing a deployment to
> the snapshot repository. The announcement will need JENA-440 and
> JENA-439 (wrong HTTP status code on timeouts) pointing out as worthy of
> testing.
>
> Everyone - this doesn't close the codebase to fixes - what other JIRA to
> aim for (but treat as blocking),
I'll be looking at JENA-444 before the release.
If someone could process JENA-442 it would be good as well -- a
contribution of an improved service script.
Andy
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
OK - release for 2.10.1 has been set in progress.
I'm still planning on doing a co-ordinated SDB release but that may take
a bit of sorting out. In theory, multiple builds per stagign repo are
possible but I haven't tested how that interacts with the mvn release
plugin.
Rather than delay 2.10.1, I've done the 2.10.1 now. SDB can follow
shortly (it is the same amount of checking needed).
Again - kudos to Rob's instructions - including recovery from svn mirror
lack-of-sync.
Andy
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
On 10/05/13 14:32, Ian Dickinson wrote:
> On 10/05/13 11:46, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>> Then the JENA-450 report came in. JENA-450 is the problem that code
>> can't create OntModels inside read transactions when the model is new --
>> it tries to set prefixes and read-only really is read-only.
>>
>> The OntModelImpl constructor copies in prefixes from the profile. If
>> the model is new, the prefixes aren't defined in the model, and the code
>> sets them. But it can't.
>>
>> A couple of possible fixes:
>>
>> 1/ Put try{} around the setNsPrefix loop and skip if an exception occurs.
>>
>> 2/ Always have an updatable in-memory prefix mapping for read-only model.
>>
>> (2) seems better but I'm not absolutely sure how to achieve it yet
>> within the current mechanism.
> It would be so, so much better if a prefix mapping was a thing that a
> model had by composition, rather than a thing that a model subclassed.
> That might be a good change to think about making in future. I've never
> liked the current setup :)
>
> Is there a way of telling whether a model is read-only, other than
> trying a write and catching the exception?
No - there is Capabilities on graphs but as far as I know, nothing uses
them. looks like the app can't get to them via the model any way. They
don't provide a clear cut can/can't - they provide "can perform" on
variations of add and delete.
The only uses I can find are:
1/ sizeAccurate() the isomorphism matcher.
2/ findContractSafe() in teh RDF/XML-ABBREV writer - I have no idea what
"safe" means.
/**
Answer true if the find() contract on the associated graph
is "safe", ie, can be used safely by the pretty-printer (we'll
tighten up that definition).
*/
> An alternative behaviour-altering change would be to remove the default
> prefixes from OntModel altogether, hence no need to do any updates in
> the constructor. OntModel is the only model that does set default
> prefixes, and the ones it sets are rdf:, rdfs:, owl: and xsd:. One could
> argue that there's utility in those being available in all models by
> default, in which case it could be a read-only extension to the base
> mapping.
How about adding that to JENA-189 (Jena3 collecting)?
>
>>
>> Long term, beyond 2.10.1, changing the design of TDB graphs to have
>> graphs work across transaction boundaries looks like the right thing to
>> do. The graph also carries around internal details used by the query
>> execution engine. Then model.begin/model.commit can work as a write
>> transaction. Not the sort of thing to do just before a release after
>> people have tested for us.
>>
>> For this release, I suggest a short amount of time to see if there is
>> some temporary fix for JENA-450 (e.g. 1), then do the release
>> regardless. This isn't a regression; it does need fixing; there are
>> many other things in 2.10.1 that are better than 2.10.0.
> I can do that if you'd like me to.
Great - we might as well do (1) (try-catch on setNSPrefix) anyway and
(2) if it also works. No cost in having both.
>
> Ian
>
Andy
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Ian Dickinson <ia...@epimorphics.com>.
On 10/05/13 11:46, Andy Seaborne wrote:
> The users@ message said "a few weeks" and I was all set to do the
> release ...
>
> Then the JENA-450 report came in. JENA-450 is the problem that code
> can't create OntModels inside read transactions when the model is new --
> it tries to set prefixes and read-only really is read-only.
>
> The OntModelImpl constructor copies in prefixes from the profile. If
> the model is new, the prefixes aren't defined in the model, and the code
> sets them. But it can't.
>
> A couple of possible fixes:
>
> 1/ Put try{} around the setNsPrefix loop and skip if an exception occurs.
>
> 2/ Always have an updatable in-memory prefix mapping for read-only model.
>
> (2) seems better but I'm not absolutely sure how to achieve it yet
> within the current mechanism.
It would be so, so much better if a prefix mapping was a thing that a
model had by composition, rather than a thing that a model subclassed.
That might be a good change to think about making in future. I've never
liked the current setup :)
Is there a way of telling whether a model is read-only, other than
trying a write and catching the exception?
An alternative behaviour-altering change would be to remove the default
prefixes from OntModel altogether, hence no need to do any updates in
the constructor. OntModel is the only model that does set default
prefixes, and the ones it sets are rdf:, rdfs:, owl: and xsd:. One could
argue that there's utility in those being available in all models by
default, in which case it could be a read-only extension to the base
mapping.
>
> Long term, beyond 2.10.1, changing the design of TDB graphs to have
> graphs work across transaction boundaries looks like the right thing to
> do. The graph also carries around internal details used by the query
> execution engine. Then model.begin/model.commit can work as a write
> transaction. Not the sort of thing to do just before a release after
> people have tested for us.
>
> For this release, I suggest a short amount of time to see if there is
> some temporary fix for JENA-450 (e.g. 1), then do the release
> regardless. This isn't a regression; it does need fixing; there are
> many other things in 2.10.1 that are better than 2.10.0.
I can do that if you'd like me to.
Ian
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
The users@ message said "a few weeks" and I was all set to do the
release ...
Then the JENA-450 report came in. JENA-450 is the problem that code
can't create OntModels inside read transactions when the model is new --
it tries to set prefixes and read-only really is read-only.
The OntModelImpl constructor copies in prefixes from the profile. If
the model is new, the prefixes aren't defined in the model, and the code
sets them. But it can't.
A couple of possible fixes:
1/ Put try{} around the setNsPrefix loop and skip if an exception occurs.
2/ Always have an updatable in-memory prefix mapping for read-only model.
(2) seems better but I'm not absolutely sure how to achieve it yet
within the current mechanism.
Long term, beyond 2.10.1, changing the design of TDB graphs to have
graphs work across transaction boundaries looks like the right thing to
do. The graph also carries around internal details used by the query
execution engine. Then model.begin/model.commit can work as a write
transaction. Not the sort of thing to do just before a release after
people have tested for us.
For this release, I suggest a short amount of time to see if there is
some temporary fix for JENA-450 (e.g. 1), then do the release
regardless. This isn't a regression; it does need fixing; there are
many other things in 2.10.1 that are better than 2.10.0.
Andy
On 08/05/13 03:14, Stephen Owens wrote:
> +1, love to have this version.
>
>
> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com> wrote:
>
>> Yes things look good, I don't think I have anything else that I need/want
>> to get into the release
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/7/13 6:45 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> So far, so good.
>>>
>>> There have been some useful reports, including SDB, and some
>>> fixes/additions:
>>>
>>> + Added improved Fuseki start script
>>>
>>> + OpAsQuery fix rewriting nested selects
>>>
>>> + Optimizer improvement for DISTINCT and ORDER BY
>>>
>>> + Serializing queries for SERVICE: property paths could break the syntax.
>>>
>>> + One significant fix to RIOT in the handling file: URIs mostly
>>> affecting Windows
>>>
>>> + Query timeouts now work as advertised
>>>
>>>
>>> JENA-447 is SDB related but it's not a regression as far as I can see.
>>> (Seems to be something with concurrent, transactions and the bulk loader.)
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Stephen Owens <st...@thoughtwire.ca>.
+1, love to have this version.
On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 8:09 PM, Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com> wrote:
> Yes things look good, I don't think I have anything else that I need/want
> to get into the release
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On 5/7/13 6:45 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >So far, so good.
> >
> >There have been some useful reports, including SDB, and some
> >fixes/additions:
> >
> >+ Added improved Fuseki start script
> >
> >+ OpAsQuery fix rewriting nested selects
> >
> >+ Optimizer improvement for DISTINCT and ORDER BY
> >
> >+ Serializing queries for SERVICE: property paths could break the syntax.
> >
> >+ One significant fix to RIOT in the handling file: URIs mostly
> >affecting Windows
> >
> >+ Query timeouts now work as advertised
> >
> >
> >JENA-447 is SDB related but it's not a regression as far as I can see.
> >(Seems to be something with concurrent, transactions and the bulk loader.)
> >
> > Andy
> >
>
>
--
Regards,
*
*
*Stephen Owens*
CTO, ThoughtWire
t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>.
Yes things look good, I don't think I have anything else that I need/want
to get into the release
Rob
On 5/7/13 6:45 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>So far, so good.
>
>There have been some useful reports, including SDB, and some
>fixes/additions:
>
>+ Added improved Fuseki start script
>
>+ OpAsQuery fix rewriting nested selects
>
>+ Optimizer improvement for DISTINCT and ORDER BY
>
>+ Serializing queries for SERVICE: property paths could break the syntax.
>
>+ One significant fix to RIOT in the handling file: URIs mostly
>affecting Windows
>
>+ Query timeouts now work as advertised
>
>
>JENA-447 is SDB related but it's not a regression as far as I can see.
>(Seems to be something with concurrent, transactions and the bulk loader.)
>
> Andy
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
So far, so good.
There have been some useful reports, including SDB, and some
fixes/additions:
+ Added improved Fuseki start script
+ OpAsQuery fix rewriting nested selects
+ Optimizer improvement for DISTINCT and ORDER BY
+ Serializing queries for SERVICE: property paths could break the syntax.
+ One significant fix to RIOT in the handling file: URIs mostly
affecting Windows
+ Query timeouts now work as advertised
JENA-447 is SDB related but it's not a regression as far as I can see.
(Seems to be something with concurrent, transactions and the bulk loader.)
Andy
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Fixing JENA-440 (query timeouts) has taken longer than I'd hoped, then I
was away for a couple of days. But the timeout changes are something
I'm quite keen that is tested properly.
Done now. I'll send email to users@ ASAP after forcing a deployment to
the snapshot repository. The announcement will need JENA-440 and
JENA-439 (wrong HTTP status code on timeouts) pointing out as worthy of
testing.
Everyone - this doesn't close the codebase to fixes - what other JIRA to
aim for (but treat as blocking),
Andy
On 25/04/13 18:49, Rob Vesse wrote:
> Andy
>
> So are we all OK with moving towards a next release?
>
> Other than finishing up some more tests for JENA-445 (the OpAsQuery with
> sub-queries bug) I don't have anything else that I want to get in the
> release, the release already includes a variety of bug fixes that I need
> to close out some internal bugs here so getting it sooner rather than
> later would be nice
>
> I can send out the email to the lists if you like?
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On 4/19/13 11:06 AM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca> wrote:
>
>> I ran all of our Turtle tests against it and it performed well, no
>> complaints on any of the functionality. We had to change white space
>> handling slightly in our test cases and it seems a little more permissive,
>> a double semi-colon after a statement used to cause a syntax failure and
>> is
>> now silently passed. The new behaviour seems correct to me so no
>> complaints.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Owens
>> <stephen.owens@thoughtwire.ca
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>>> 2.10.1
>>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>>> I'll
>>> try to do that over the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>>>
>>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>>>
>>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>>>
>>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>>> odd
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for now
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>>>> tried
>>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>>> detail
>>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> be ready?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Stephen Owens*
>>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> *
>> *
>> *Stephen Owens*
>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Fixing JENA-440 (query timeouts) has taken longer than I'd hoped, then I
was away for a couple of days. But the timeout changes are something
I'm quite keen that gets tested properly.
Done now. I'll send email to users@ ASAP - it'll need JENA-440 pointing
out as worthy of testing.
Everyone - this doesn't close the codebase to fixes - what other JIRA
are you aiming for (but treat as blocking)?
Andy
On 25/04/13 18:49, Rob Vesse wrote:
> Andy
>
> So are we all OK with moving towards a next release?
>
> Other than finishing up some more tests for JENA-445 (the OpAsQuery with
> sub-queries bug) I don't have anything else that I want to get in the
> release, the release already includes a variety of bug fixes that I need
> to close out some internal bugs here so getting it sooner rather than
> later would be nice
>
> I can send out the email to the lists if you like?
>
> Rob
>
>
>
> On 4/19/13 11:06 AM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca> wrote:
>
>> I ran all of our Turtle tests against it and it performed well, no
>> complaints on any of the functionality. We had to change white space
>> handling slightly in our test cases and it seems a little more permissive,
>> a double semi-colon after a statement used to cause a syntax failure and
>> is
>> now silently passed. The new behaviour seems correct to me so no
>> complaints.
>>
>> +1
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Owens
>> <stephen.owens@thoughtwire.ca
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>>> 2.10.1
>>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>>> I'll
>>> try to do that over the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>>>
>>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>>>
>>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>>>
>>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>>> odd
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for now
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active
>>>>>> by
>>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>>>> tried
>>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>>> detail
>>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>>> might
>>>>>> it
>>>>>> be ready?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Stephen Owens*
>>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> *
>> *
>> *Stephen Owens*
>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>.
Andy
So are we all OK with moving towards a next release?
Other than finishing up some more tests for JENA-445 (the OpAsQuery with
sub-queries bug) I don't have anything else that I want to get in the
release, the release already includes a variety of bug fixes that I need
to close out some internal bugs here so getting it sooner rather than
later would be nice
I can send out the email to the lists if you like?
Rob
On 4/19/13 11:06 AM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca> wrote:
>I ran all of our Turtle tests against it and it performed well, no
>complaints on any of the functionality. We had to change white space
>handling slightly in our test cases and it seems a little more permissive,
>a double semi-colon after a statement used to cause a syntax failure and
>is
>now silently passed. The new behaviour seems correct to me so no
>complaints.
>
>+1
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Owens
><stephen.owens@thoughtwire.ca
>> wrote:
>
>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>>2.10.1
>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>>I'll
>> try to do that over the weekend.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>>
>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>>
>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>>
>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>>odd
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for now
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>>
>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active
>>>>>by
>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>>> tried
>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>> detail
>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>>think
>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>>might
>>>>> it
>>>>> be ready?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> *
>> *
>> *Stephen Owens*
>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Regards,
>*
>*
>*Stephen Owens*
>CTO, ThoughtWire
>t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Stephen Owens <st...@thoughtwire.ca>.
I ran all of our Turtle tests against it and it performed well, no
complaints on any of the functionality. We had to change white space
handling slightly in our test cases and it seems a little more permissive,
a double semi-colon after a statement used to cause a syntax failure and is
now silently passed. The new behaviour seems correct to me so no
complaints.
+1
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:21 PM, Stephen Owens <stephen.owens@thoughtwire.ca
> wrote:
> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give 2.10.1
> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything. I'll
> try to do that over the weekend.
>
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>
>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>
>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>
>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the odd
>> question.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for now
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>
>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>> tried
>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>> detail
>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I think
>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>> release.
>>>>
>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when might
>>>> it
>>>> be ready?)
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> *
> *
> *Stephen Owens*
> CTO, ThoughtWire
> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>
>
--
Regards,
*
*
*Stephen Owens*
CTO, ThoughtWire
t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>.
Yes of course, go ahead and start the testing cycle
I'm not sure how important the HTTP cookie thing is anyway because the
design discussions here are leaning towards using HTTP basic
authentication as the shortest path to getting things done so being able
to maintain cookie state over a series of requests is likely to be low
priority for us for now. It would be a nice enhancement to have long term
so I will file a JIRA for it.
Rob
On 4/16/13 4:52 AM, "Andy Seaborne" <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>Rob,
>
>Fine by me (I have now linked the ParameterizedSparqlString page into
>the query main documentation page).
>
>Is it OK to ask now on users@ for testing? I think that the writer
>changes deserve a long(er) time so maybe a month. That's not a promise
>to release on a particualr schedule - just start the prerelease cycle.
>
>If the HTTP usage checking takes longer, so be it.
>
> Andy
>
>On 15/04/13 23:56, Rob Vesse wrote:
>> I still want to try and finish up some additional tests for
>> ParameterizedSparqlString
>>
>> I also have another potential issue with HTTP request support that
>>applies
>> to both queries and updates that I would like to at least investigate
>>and
>> document prior to the release. For those wondering the specific issue
>>is
>> being able to maintain cookie state over a series of requests which is
>> necessary if you want to use any sort of forms/cookie based
>>authentication
>> against remote endpoints.
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> On 4/12/13 2:21 PM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>>> 2.10.1
>>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>>> I'll
>>> try to do that over the weekend.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>>>
>>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>>>
>>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>>>
>>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>>> odd
>>>> question.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> +1 for now
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active
>>>>>>by
>>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>>>> tried
>>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>>> detail
>>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>>> think
>>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>>> release.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>>> might it
>>>>>> be ready?)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Andy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>> *
>>> *
>>> *Stephen Owens*
>>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>>
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
Rob,
Fine by me (I have now linked the ParameterizedSparqlString page into
the query main documentation page).
Is it OK to ask now on users@ for testing? I think that the writer
changes deserve a long(er) time so maybe a month. That's not a promise
to release on a particualr schedule - just start the prerelease cycle.
If the HTTP usage checking takes longer, so be it.
Andy
On 15/04/13 23:56, Rob Vesse wrote:
> I still want to try and finish up some additional tests for
> ParameterizedSparqlString
>
> I also have another potential issue with HTTP request support that applies
> to both queries and updates that I would like to at least investigate and
> document prior to the release. For those wondering the specific issue is
> being able to maintain cookie state over a series of requests which is
> necessary if you want to use any sort of forms/cookie based authentication
> against remote endpoints.
>
> Rob
>
>
> On 4/12/13 2:21 PM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca> wrote:
>
>> Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>> looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>> 2.10.1
>> a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>> I'll
>> try to do that over the weekend.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>>
>>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>>
>>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>>
>>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>> odd
>>> question.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>>
>>>> +1 for now
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>>
>>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
>>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>>> tried
>>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>> detail
>>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>> think
>>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>> release.
>>>>>
>>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>> might it
>>>>> be ready?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> *
>> *
>> *Stephen Owens*
>> CTO, ThoughtWire
>> t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Rob Vesse <rv...@yarcdata.com>.
I still want to try and finish up some additional tests for
ParameterizedSparqlString
I also have another potential issue with HTTP request support that applies
to both queries and updates that I would like to at least investigate and
document prior to the release. For those wondering the specific issue is
being able to maintain cookie state over a series of requests which is
necessary if you want to use any sort of forms/cookie based authentication
against remote endpoints.
Rob
On 4/12/13 2:21 PM, "Stephen Owens" <st...@thoughtwire.ca> wrote:
>Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
>looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give
>2.10.1
>a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything.
>I'll
>try to do that over the weekend.
>
>
>On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>>
>> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>>
>> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>>
>> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
>>odd
>> question.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>>
>> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>>
>>> +1 for now
>>>
>>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>>
>>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
>>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>>> tried
>>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the
>>>>detail
>>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I
>>>>think
>>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the
>>>>release.
>>>>
>>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when
>>>>might it
>>>> be ready?)
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
>--
>Regards,
>*
>*
>*Stephen Owens*
>CTO, ThoughtWire
>t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Stephen Owens <st...@thoughtwire.ca>.
Big +1 for me. It has the concurrent modification fix that I've been
looking forward to. We use Turtle output fairly heavily so I'll give 2.10.1
a spin through our tests just to be sure it hasn't messed up anything. I'll
try to do that over the weekend.
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> There is one other change of note albeit minor.
>
> Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
>
> N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
>
> This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the odd
> question.
>
> Andy
>
>
> On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
>
>> +1 for now
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>>
>>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
>>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've
>>> tried
>>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the detail
>>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I think
>>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the release.
>>>
>>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when might it
>>> be ready?)
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
--
Regards,
*
*
*Stephen Owens*
CTO, ThoughtWire
t 647.351.9473 ext.104 I m 416.697.3466
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>.
There is one other change of note albeit minor.
Parser-generated blank node labels change (except RDF/XML).
N-Triples/N-Quads print using the internal label (for scalability).
This should not matter to anyone but it is visible. It may cause the
odd question.
Andy
On 12/04/13 18:54, Claude Warren wrote:
> +1 for now
>
> On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>>
>> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
>> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've tried
>> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the detail
>> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I think
>> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the release.
>>
>> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when might it
>> be ready?)
>>
>> Andy
>>
>
>
>
Re: Jena 2.10.1 - time to start the cycle?
Posted by Claude Warren <cl...@xenei.com>.
+1 for now
On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 6:02 PM, Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org> wrote:
> How do people feel about a Jena 2.10.1?
>
> The big change I've added is the new RIOT writers, which are active by
> default. I'd like to do longer cycle on users@ because, while I've tried
> not to make visible changes, there will be some differences in the detail
> of output for Turtle. While I don't expect a lot of responses, I think
> it's worth at least giving people the chance to check before the release.
>
> Are there things anyone wants to get into Jena 2.10.1? (and when might it
> be ready?)
>
> Andy
>
--
I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web<http://like-like.xenei.com>
Identity: https://www.identify.nu/user.php?claude@xenei.com
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren