[jira] [Resolved] (JENA-2017) Add SPARQL* Annotation syntax (experimental)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ] Andy Seaborne resolved JENA-2017. - Fix Version/s: Jena 3.18.0 Assignee: Andy Seaborne Resolution: Fixed > Add SPARQL* Annotation syntax (experimental) > > > Key: JENA-2017 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2017 > Project: Apache Jena > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Andy Seaborne >Assignee: Andy Seaborne >Priority: Major > Fix For: Jena 3.18.0 > > Time Spent: 1h > Remaining Estimate: 0h > -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (JENA-2017) Add SPARQL* Annotation syntax (experimental)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17257511#comment-17257511 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on JENA-2017: --- Commit f6fe5a8cc0d6558df535e54cc374d7986b484438 in jena's branch refs/heads/master from Andy Seaborne [ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=jena.git;h=f6fe5a8 ] JENA-2017: SPARQL* Syntax: Update test framework > Add SPARQL* Annotation syntax (experimental) > > > Key: JENA-2017 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2017 > Project: Apache Jena > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Andy Seaborne >Priority: Major > Time Spent: 50m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (JENA-2017) Add SPARQL* Annotation syntax (experimental)
[ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2017?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17257512#comment-17257512 ] ASF subversion and git services commented on JENA-2017: --- Commit edde1cf9acee84d3f221fd6642bcace0dbdc1fb8 in jena's branch refs/heads/master from Andy Seaborne [ https://gitbox.apache.org/repos/asf?p=jena.git;h=edde1cf ] Merge pull request #894 from afs/jena2017-sparql-star JENA-2017: Annotation syntax for SPARQL* > Add SPARQL* Annotation syntax (experimental) > > > Key: JENA-2017 > URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2017 > Project: Apache Jena > Issue Type: Improvement >Reporter: Andy Seaborne >Priority: Major > Time Spent: 50m > Remaining Estimate: 0h > -- This message was sent by Atlassian Jira (v8.3.4#803005)
Re: Java 8 or 11?
+1. This will only get more pressing with time. Adam On Fri, Jan 1, 2021, 8:36 PM Bruno P. Kinoshita wrote: > I'm +1 for Java 11, and to go along with your plan. First message to > users with our intention, and asking for any known issues from their side. > > Bruno > > On Saturday, 2 January 2021, 1:13:39 am NZDT, Andy Seaborne < > a...@apache.org> wrote: > > Should we switch to Java11? > > There are the usually issues of moving to a newer Java. There seems > likely to be an emerging bimodal distribution of systems remaining with > Java8 and systems moving to Java11 and Java 17 (likely an LTS - > September 2021). > > The question is how many systems would upgrade their Jena version and > are restricted to Java8 (and why!). > > Java is evolving to better fit in the new tech landscape (e.g. better > container usage), more compact strings (significant for Jena), and > JDK-provided HTTP/2. > > Some dependences or potential dependencies are Java11: > > Titanium - for JSON-LD 1.1 (JENA-1948 - titanium-json-ld ) > > Eclipse Jetty 10 and 11 now depend on Java11. > > (the difference between Jetty 10 and Jetty 11 is that Jetty 10 uses the > package root name "javax..." whereas Jetty11 uses package route > "jakarta...") > > Proposal: > > 1/ Ask on users@ -- what we need is "new information" such as "I am > blocked from updating Java because ...", not "I haven't got round to it". > > 2/ Switch to Java11 for the next release but not make so many changes > that we can't easily go back to Java8. > > Andy >
[jira] [Commented] (JENA-2020) Purpose of EvaluatorSimple and OpExecutor
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2020?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17257390#comment-17257390
]
Andy Seaborne commented on JENA-2020:
-
{quote}{{QueryIterator coveringIter = exec(bgp, input);}}{quote}
and then you exhaust {{coveringIter}} but {{coveringIter}} uses {{input}} so
{{input}} has ended. So {{exec(opExistence.getBGPNotReordered(), input)}} is
passing a used up iterator {{input}}.
> Purpose of EvaluatorSimple and OpExecutor
> -
>
> Key: JENA-2020
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2020
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: ARQ
>Reporter: Martin Pekár
>Priority: Major
> Original Estimate: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> I am in the midst of adding a new operator in the transformation of OpBGP. I
> am now trying to implement the execution of the operator in the query plan,
> but I am now slightly confused about the purpose of EvaluatorSimple used in
> EvaluatorDispatch and OpExecutor. At the moment, it seems like they are doing
> the same thing. The difference seems to be that OpExecutor stores the result
> of applying the operator in a QueryIterator, whereas EvaluatorSimple stores
> its result in a Table of bindings.
> Can someone give me an explanation of purposes of these two classes and how
> they should be used?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
[jira] [Commented] (JENA-2020) Purpose of EvaluatorSimple and OpExecutor
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2020?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=17257345#comment-17257345
]
Martin Pekár commented on JENA-2020:
{{The executor for OpExistence is seen below:}}
{code:java}
protected QueryIterator execute(OpExistence opExistence, QueryIterator input) {
OpBGP bgp = new OpBGP(BasicPattern.wrap(opExistence.getCoveringTriples()));
QueryIterator coveringIter = exec(bgp, input);
Triple checkTriple = opExistence.getCheckTriple().getTriple();
while (coveringIter.hasNext())
{
checkTriple = TripleConretise.concretiseTriple(checkTriple,
coveringIter.nextBinding());
}
return checkTriple.isConcrete() ? exec(opExistence.getBGPNotReordered(),
input) : emptyIterator();
}{code}
The call to checkTriple.isConcrete() is true in all tests. The call to exec in
the third line would return a new iterator, which I iterate. But on the last
line, I return a new iterator with the BGP in the subOp. I don't understand why
this returned iterator is empty since it only executes the executor for OpBGP
and returns it.
> Purpose of EvaluatorSimple and OpExecutor
> -
>
> Key: JENA-2020
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-2020
> Project: Apache Jena
> Issue Type: Question
> Components: ARQ
>Reporter: Martin Pekár
>Priority: Major
> Original Estimate: 1h
> Remaining Estimate: 1h
>
> I am in the midst of adding a new operator in the transformation of OpBGP. I
> am now trying to implement the execution of the operator in the query plan,
> but I am now slightly confused about the purpose of EvaluatorSimple used in
> EvaluatorDispatch and OpExecutor. At the moment, it seems like they are doing
> the same thing. The difference seems to be that OpExecutor stores the result
> of applying the operator in a QueryIterator, whereas EvaluatorSimple stores
> its result in a Table of bindings.
> Can someone give me an explanation of purposes of these two classes and how
> they should be used?
--
This message was sent by Atlassian Jira
(v8.3.4#803005)
