Re: Should I replace Jena Fuseki 1.1 with 1.3.1 or 2.3.1?

[Steinar Bang <sb...@dod.no>]

>>>>> Andy Seaborne <an...@public.gmane.org>:

> Hopefully, Fuseki2 is compatible with Fuseki1 configurations - it's
> supposed to be anyway.

> At some point (no plans), Fuseki1 is end-of-life.  Currently, it's
> only getting maintenance.

> Fuseki2 runs as a service much better.

Ok, thanks!  Compared with what you said inline, Fuseki2 it is!

One point I forgot to mention was that we want SPARQL query results as
JSON-LD and that's possibly Fuseki2 only...? (If so, this definitely
means going for Fuseki2).

One minor comment/question below:

>> - Directory layout compatibility? (I know this is different)

> It does have it's own "run" area.  That's part of being more
> OS-service oriented.

As far as I can tell from the existing code, it operates with a TDB
directory with the dataset embedded, while Fuseki2 seems to use the
structure
 run/databases/<dataset-name>

Ie. one separate TDB database per dataset...?

Or is it just that the existing code creates a single dataset and names
the directory it resides in "TDB" rather than using the dataset name...?
(The existing code that wraps Fuseki1 _does_ seem to ensure that the
a single dataset is always present and creates it if it isn't)

Re: Should I replace Jena Fuseki 1.1 with 1.3.1 or 2.3.1?

[Andy Seaborne <an...@apache.org>]

On 07/04/16 10:05, Steinar Bang wrote:
>>>>>> Andy Seaborne <an...@public.gmane.org>:
>
>> Hopefully, Fuseki2 is compatible with Fuseki1 configurations - it's
>> supposed to be anyway.
>
>> At some point (no plans), Fuseki1 is end-of-life.  Currently, it's
>> only getting maintenance.
>
>> Fuseki2 runs as a service much better.
>
> Ok, thanks!  Compared with what you said inline, Fuseki2 it is!
>
> One point I forgot to mention was that we want SPARQL query results as
> JSON-LD and that's possibly Fuseki2 only...? (If so, this definitely
> means going for Fuseki2).

Fuseki1 should support JSON-LD - they both use the same parser/write 
code and fuseki1 is being rebuilt with each Jena release.

>
> One minor comment/question below:
>
>>> - Directory layout compatibility? (I know this is different)
>
>> It does have it's own "run" area.  That's part of being more
>> OS-service oriented.
>
> As far as I can tell from the existing code,

Your code? Running Fuseki from within a program?

(That does work in Fuseki2 - jut call main - although a proper embedding 
setup would be nicer - but IIRC Fuseki1 was no different)

> it operates with a TDB
> directory with the dataset embedded, while Fuseki2 seems to use the
> structure
>   run/databases/<dataset-name>
>
> Ie. one separate TDB database per dataset...?
>
> Or is it just that the existing code creates a single dataset and names
> the directory it resides in "TDB" rather than using the dataset name...?
> (The existing code that wraps Fuseki1 _does_ seem to ensure that the
> a single dataset is always present and creates it if it isn't)
>

run/databases/ is where Fuseki2 puts TDB databases created via the UI. 
A service configuration can point to anywhere on disk.

The command line way to start Fuseki2 is generally compatible with 
Fuseki1 to aid migration.  Running Fuseki2 as a OS-service is much easier.

	Andy