Marco Brandizi created COMMONSRDF-73:
----------------------------------------

             Summary: Jena module has Simple dependency, SPI will never work
                 Key: COMMONSRDF-73
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-73
             Project: Apache Commons RDF
          Issue Type: Bug
          Components: jena
    Affects Versions: 0.3.0
            Reporter: Marco Brandizi


I'm trying to setup the RDF object one should use with Commons-RDF in a 
transparent way, using the SPI mechanism, ServiceLoader and 
META-INF/org.apache.commons.rdf.api.RDF. 

This is the code I'm using:

{quote}
private synchronized static RDF getDefaultRdf () 
{
        if ( defaultRdf != null ) return defaultRdf;
        
        ServiceLoader<RDF> loader = ServiceLoader.load ( RDF.class );
        Iterator<RDF> itr = loader.iterator();
        
        if ( !itr.hasNext () ) throw new RdfException (
                "No implementation found for Commons RDF, please, review your 
dependencies/classpath"
        );
        defaultRdf = itr.next();
        if ( itr.hasNext () ) log.warn ( 
                "More than one RDF instance available for Commons RDF, taking 
the first one ({})", 
                itr.next ().getClass ().getName () 
        );      
        
        return defaultRdf;
}
{quote}

I've done a first test with the Jena module (commons-rdf-jena). SPI is broken 
by the fact this module also declares commons-rdf-simple as one of its 
dependencies. At least in Maven, the META-INF in commons-rdf-simple is the 
first that is met in the classpath and the simple implementation is the one 
that is picked by the code above, as reported by the warning. I expect the Jena 
implementation to be pulled up when I link the jena module as the only 
dependency.

Such dependency should be removed. I've given a look at the source files and it 
seem the simple module is only used for testing purposes (but physically is in 
the main code folders).




--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to