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 <[email protected] > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
