I've made those changes-- should be restaging now.
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 12:40 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
>
>
> On 08/11/16 16:59, A. Soroka wrote:
>> This commit includes the new docs for HTTP behavior in Jena 3.1.1. I can't
>> find any way to
How bizarre! I tried non-HTTPS and it behaves differently in Firefox and
Chrome. Firefox shows me the proxied CMS site, Chrome shows me the Jena staging
site.
{sigh}
More importantly than my browser woes, interested parties can find the doc
changes here:
http://jena.staging.apache.org/documen
On 08/11/16 16:59, A. Soroka wrote:
This commit includes the new docs for HTTP behavior in Jena 3.1.1. I can't find
any way to see a view of this on the staging site--
https://jena.staging.apache.org/ just seems to proxy https://cms.apache.org/,
for some reason?
It does not for me.
Try h
This commit includes the new docs for HTTP behavior in Jena 3.1.1. I can't find
any way to see a view of this on the staging site--
https://jena.staging.apache.org/ just seems to proxy https://cms.apache.org/,
for some reason?
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
> On Nov 8, 2016,
Looks like an OK solutions. Could the S classes be made "final"..?
There are some security concerns with readObject() that can expose remote
code execution, by for instance building a sorted collection with
comparable objects, where one of those objects allow custom comparison code
(e.g. a groovy
I am pretty confident in my changes, so I will commit them directly to trunk,
then Rob (or whoever wants to) can glance over them in staging and see that
they meet expectations, or whether more is needed.
Now, on to recreating work. {grumble, grumble}
> You may find them still in your copy of t
On 08/11/16 14:31, A. Soroka wrote:
Well, this is pretty infuriating. I did not 'extra-commit' the changes I made
to the HTTP auth docs, apparently, or something of the sort, and they are all
now gone. So I will have to redo those.
Very annoying.
You may find them still in your copy of the
Well, this is pretty infuriating. I did not 'extra-commit' the changes I made
to the HTTP auth docs, apparently, or something of the sort, and they are all
now gone. So I will have to redo those.
I have read the documentation repeatedly and I do not understand the web-based
CMS interface at al
+1.
---
A. Soroka
The University of Virginia Library
> On Nov 8, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes wrote:
>
> +1
>
> On 8 Nov 2016 1:56 pm, "Andy Seaborne" wrote:
>
>> Well, 3.1.1 should have been 3.2.0 so lets pretend 3.1.1 is 3.2.0-beta.
>> :-) So if we have to get out a bug-fixing "3
+1
On 8 Nov 2016 1:56 pm, "Andy Seaborne" wrote:
> Well, 3.1.1 should have been 3.2.0 so lets pretend 3.1.1 is 3.2.0-beta.
> :-) So if we have to get out a bug-fixing "3.1.2" or anything even quite
> soon, 3.2.0 is still a reasonable choice.
>
> It is much easier to set the version now. It sets
On 08/11/16 13:56, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Well, 3.1.1 should have been 3.2.0 so lets pretend 3.1.1 is 3.2.0-beta.
:-) So if we have to get out a bug-fixing "3.1.2" or anything even
quite soon, 3.2.0 is still a reasonable choice.
+1
Dave
It is much easier to set the version now. It sets into a
Well, 3.1.1 should have been 3.2.0 so lets pretend 3.1.1 is 3.2.0-beta.
:-) So if we have to get out a bug-fixing "3.1.2" or anything even
quite soon, 3.2.0 is still a reasonable choice.
It is much easier to set the version now. It sets into all sorts of
places like written down in JIRA and e
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1258?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15647563#comment-15647563
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on JENA-1258:
--
Github user stain commented on the issue:
Github user stain commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/189
Yes, your pull request looks like the best approach.
On 8 Nov 2016 12:33 pm, "Andy Seaborne" wrote:
> The better fix is to initialize in NodeFactory (and Node for legacy
> reasons) o
Should we wait for the change that causes the version jump first. I would
think that we would have 3.1.2-SNAPSHOT and then *if* JENA-1250 causes an
incompatible change jump the version to 3.2.0-SNAPSHOT
But I can go either way
+0
On Tue, Nov 8, 2016 at 11:37 AM, Osma Suominen
wrote:
> 08.11.
We are pleased to announce the release of Apache Jena 3.1.1 together
with Fuseki 2.4.1.
In this release:
* Improved JSON-LD output
JENA-1208 - François-Paul Servant
http://jena.apache.org/documentation/io/rdf-output.html#json-ld
* Completed F&O XPath3 functions
JENA-508 - Alessandro
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1258?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15647439#comment-15647439
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on JENA-1258:
--
Github user afs commented on the issue:
h
Github user afs commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/189
The better fix is to initialize in `NodeFactory` (and `Node` for legacy
reasons) only. I have tested this in a build.
There is little point in a specific test because tests run in the overall
suit
GitHub user afs opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/192
JENA-1258: System init in NodeFactory. Make ARQConstants init-safe.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/afs/jena arq-constants
Alternativ
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1258?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15647437#comment-15647437
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on JENA-1258:
--
GitHub user afs opened a pull request:
ht
GitHub user afs opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/191
JENA-1233: Serializable for Node/Triple/Quad.
Note: this works if and only if both jena-core and jena-arq are used.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https:
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1233?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15647325#comment-15647325
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on JENA-1233:
--
GitHub user afs opened a pull request:
ht
08.11.2016, 12:33, Andy Seaborne wrote:
Should the next version be 3.2.0?
The Lucene file format may well change.
If we want that, I'll go and update the POM versions.
+1 for calling it 3.2.0.
Yes, the Lucene upgrade (JENA-1250) will very likely go into the next
release in some form and cha
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1215?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15647299#comment-15647299
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on JENA-1215:
--
GitHub user afs opened a pull request:
ht
GitHub user afs opened a pull request:
https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/190
JENA-1215: Provide ResultSetCloseable.
You can merge this pull request into a Git repository by running:
$ git pull https://github.com/afs/jena closeable-result-set
Alternatively you can review and
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1254?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel
]
Andy Seaborne closed JENA-1254.
---
Resolution: Fixed
Closed after a week.
> GROUP_CONCAT returns nothing when concatenating unbound and b
Should the next version be 3.2.0?
The Lucene file format may well change.
If we want that, I'll go and update the POM versions.
Andy
Andy
Comments inline:
On 07/11/2016 18:32, "Andy Seaborne" wrote:
Rob,
I ran into some issue with TransformFilterImplicitJoin
1/ As noted in the javadoc, the join condition can not be between
literals for the FILTER(?x = ?y) variant.
While the javadoc for the
The VOTE on Jena 3.1.1.passes:
+1 (binding) from Osma, Bruno, Dave, Claude, Andy
-0 from Stian
I'll proceed with the next steps:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/JENA/Release+Process#ReleaseProcess-MakingaRelease
Thanks everyone
Andy
29 matches
Mail list logo
