SamuelBoerlin commented on issue #2755:
URL: https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/2755#issuecomment-2467438273

   Hi @afs 
   
   > In the 5.1.0 logs, the error is on a read operation and the exception is 
happening after the query response has been sent so I don't think that 5.2.0 
would be causing any visible dropped queries in the client. Is this the case?
   
   No, I haven't observed any dropped queries.
   I was just curious about possible implications if this error were "silently 
ignored" now with the safeguard 
(https://github.com/apache/jena/commit/192f02e31f28b234e6944f323b697dce8f9cb929)
 introduced in 5.2.0.
   Perhaps the underlying problem (if there is one) is even completely solved 
in 5.2.0 and the safeguard isn't even being hit anymore, but I don't have a way 
of knowing that without some extra logging or breakpoint there.
   So, just to be clear, in 5.2.0 it seems to work fine without error and, as 
far as I can tell from looking at it superficially, the data is also OK.
   
   > Is the client software making calls from just one client thread/process or 
from several?
   
   All the calls/requests are done sequentially.
   
   > What library is the client software running to send SPARQL requests?
   
   We're using our own tooling for this 
(https://github.com/dasch-swiss/dsp-api, 
https://github.com/dasch-swiss/dsp-tools). The SPARQL requests are done as HTTP 
GET/POST requests (e.g. 
https://github.com/dasch-swiss/dsp-api/blob/main/webapi/src/main/scala/org/knora/webapi/store/triplestore/impl/TriplestoreServiceLive.scala#L147-L154).
   
   > If you have cleaned up the config.ttl file, could you put the current one 
you are using on the issue so I have exactly the same as you?
   
   I have not yet changed it, so it's still the same as the one I posted 
initially.
   
   > I haven't been able to recreate this with current Jena. PR 
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/2829 tidies up an inconsistent code pattern 
in jena-text but even manually single-stepping multiple threads through the 
execution didn't show the problem.
   
   Thanks! I'll give it a try and set a breakpoint or add some logging to check 
whether the safeguard is still being hit.
   
   Unfortunately I won't be able to do any further tests though until probably 
the beginning of next week.
   


-- 
This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service.
To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the
URL above to go to the specific comment.

To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]

For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at:
[email protected]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to