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 <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2019 1:13 AM To: Reto Gmür <[email protected]> Cc: Reto Gmür <[email protected]>; [email protected] 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 <[email protected]> Can we release this as the new master branch? Cheers Hasan On Fri, Jun 7, 2019 at 12:17 PM Reto Gmür <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Hasan > > > > Again a late reply, I’m trying to improve. > > > > See the outlook style inline responses. > > > > Cheers, > > Reto > > > > *From:* Hasan <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Thursday, May 23, 2019 9:49 PM > *To:* Reto Gmür <[email protected]>; Reto Gmür <[email protected]> > *Cc:* [email protected] > *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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Monday, May 13, 2019 9:55 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *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 <[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. > > 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 <[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 > > > > > >
