Hi Reto Should I proceed as mentioned in the email below?
Thanks Hasan On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 10:19 PM Hasan <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Reto. > Hi all, > > I suggest the following steps for the next release: > 1. Merge changes in parent from reunited to master and release parent 8 > 2. Merge all other modules from reunited to master and release them based > on parent 8 > 3. Update some relevant packages in https://github.com/clerezza to use > new master > 4. Refactor schemagen and ontologies module and release them > > What do you think? > > Cheers > Hasan > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 1:16 PM Reto Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Hasan >> >> I’ve pushed respective changes to the reunited branch. In my >> understanding calling the method “reset” instead of “unset” would not be a >> problem but just require some parameterization of @Reference. But I kept it >> as it is, as the method will seldomly be “manually” invoked anyway. >> >> Cheers, >> Reto >> >> From: Hasan <[email protected]> >> Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 8:39 AM >> To: [email protected]; Reto Gmür <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch >> version 8 >> >> I think we have to stick to the OSGI spec and use unsetXXX and not using >> resetXXX. >> (112.8.1 Component Annotations) >> @Reto Gmür<mailto:[email protected]>, you can update the module as >> suggested. And yes, I think it needs an argument. >> >> Thanks >> Hasan >> >> On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 11:51 AM Reto Gmür <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> I looked at the OSGi DS spec section 112.3.2 and it says "An event method >> can take one or more parameters." - Which is quite dull given their example >> just ignores the parameter: void unsetLog( LoggerFactory l ) { lf = null; } >> >> Reto >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Hasan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2019 6:24 AM >> To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Release the reunited branch as the master branch >> version 8 >> >> Hi Reto, all, >> >> On Thu, Mar 14, 2019 at 2:22 PM Reto Gmür <[email protected]<mailto: >> [email protected]>> wrote: >> >> > 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? >> > >> >> Sorry, I don't know. Maybe you can try or check? >> >> Hasan >> >> >> > Cheers, >> > Reto >> > >> > -----Original Message----- >> > From: Hasan <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 8:28 PM >> > To: [email protected]<mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2019 3:59 PM >> > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[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] >> <mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected] >> >> >> > > > Sent: Thursday, March 7, 2019 2:36 PM >> > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> >> > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 6, 2019 9:54 PM >> > > > To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto: >> [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 >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
