Okay, that's what I thought you meant and I'm +1 to that. --- A. Soroka The University of Virginia Library
> On Mar 16, 2017, at 11:42 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > > This is already a roadbump for jena-text. There is only so much development > bandwidth so if it is already a version that jena-text users are going to > have to get involved in, so making considered small API changes at the same > time seems the right thing to do. Deprecation only goes so far (people > ignore the warnings!). > > I don't know the usage well enough and don't currently use jena-text. > > get() seems odd, updateEntity I can image might be used > > ** ping Chris/Brian @Epimorphics ** > > Andy > > On 16/03/17 15:29, A. Soroka wrote: >> Sorry for my thickness, Andy, but are you saying that it makes sense to go >> ahead and make all the changes together, to avoid presenting a moving target >> for any longer than we have to? >> >> --- >> A. Soroka >> The University of Virginia Library >> >>> On Mar 16, 2017, at 11:20 AM, Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: >>> >>> This is a major jump for jena-text so getting in changes in the next >>> version makes sense to me. >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> On 16/03/17 10:50, Osma Suominen wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> In the process of developing the Elasticsearch backend for jena-text >>>> (JENA-1305), Anuj and I noticed that the methods "get" and >>>> "updateEntity" in the TextIndex interface in jena-text are never called >>>> from within Jena (not even from unit tests). Is there a reason for >>>> keeping them, or should I just remove them from the interface and its >>>> implementations? >>>> >>>> -Osma >>>> >>
