Hi Hasan Yes, the renaming you propose makes sense to me. Are both names supported by the plugin generating the files in OSGI-INF or is some special annotation needed? Does the method need to have an argument?
Cheers, Reto -----Original Message----- From: Hasan <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch version 8 Hi Reto Without a serializer instance, a GraphWriter will have no use. Thus, I don't see a disadvantage of the code proposed. Not sure though whether the name unsetSerializer should be replaced with resetSerializer which would be more suitable in this case, because we are going to reset it to a default serializer rather than set it to null. Cheers Hasan On Mon, Mar 11, 2019 at 10:19 AM Reto Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Hasan > > Regarding GraphWriter: I created a branch reunited-non-ds-mbw to > illustrate what I mean. Do you see a disadvantage with that code proposal? > The same could be applied to GraphReader. > > Cheers, > Reto > > -----Original Message----- > From: Hasan <[email protected]> > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:59 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master > branch version 8 > > Hi Reto > > Thx for the input. > Comments inline > > On Sat, Mar 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM Reto Gmür <[email protected]> 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. > > > Great. > I assume we will fix the module version in the reunited branch to 2.0.0. > Before that I'd like to have the parent version be changed from > 8-SNAPSHOT to 8. Do you agree? > What can we remove from the parent pom.xml and what can we update ? > > > > > The refactoring brings some good improvements so I'd like to see > > this released as soon as possible. > > > > This also means to make this the new master. > > > > 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 > > > So, what's the name of this artifact in the group org.apache.clerezza? > > - I don't like the name .api.impl - Without the ".api" it would be a > bit > > better, still ".impl" is just very unspecific. > > > > If we know the name of the artifact in the previous question, eg foo, > we can call it foo.impl. > Or do I misunderstand something here? > > - 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. > > > > I think current master branch already has public method setSerializer(). > > Cheers > Hasan > > > > Cheers, > > Reto > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Reto Gmür <[email protected]> > > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM > > To: [email protected] > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 > > > > > > > > >
