I would still like to see Node as a serializable object, or some standard mechanism to get a serialized version of the node. Any thoughts along this path would be appreciated.
I had thought about something along the lines of a type byte and raw data as a serialized form. But that would mean that each type would have to "register" so we could keep them from stepping on each other. This I realize is wholly unworkable. So I am back to thinking we should make the Node Serializable. Basically, I want to be able to serialize the node out so I can store it and deserialized it on demand, without having to worry about new and strange Node types. This will make a remote client (using connections other than SPARQL, ala RMI) easier and will make the implementation of the Graph SPI easier for some types of storage (e.g. Hadoop). Claude On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 10:13 AM, Andy Seaborne < [email protected]> wrote: > Just for discussion, here is a somewhat idealised form of Node: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/jena/Experimental/jena3-sketch/ > > As before there is one "Node" for any RDF term + extras 9variables, graphs > as nodes of a graph, "extension") because triple and quads are > Node,Node,Node ... this layer does not reflect the current RDF restrictions > of literals to objects or graph names. > > Feel free to mess with the code, or put a different design along side, or > sketch ideas for another area of Jena. No sense of being "the design". > > Andy > > And from a while ago: > http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jena-dev/201211. > mbox/%[email protected]%3E > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
