I opened https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-528 for this. Please
add comments there, vote it up and perhaps watch it.
Claude
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 1:32 AM, Holger Knublauch hol...@knublauch.comwrote:
On 9/4/2013 3:15, Claude Warren wrote:
As I recall the discuss around this topic
It has to be the applications responsibility to add transaction boundaries.
* JDBC connection re often controlled by the environment such as pooling.
* The application may already be in a transaction.
* Transactions are logical grouping of actions.
Model operations are not application
Is the recommended migration path to do the following instead of the bulk
update:
Start a transaction
Insert each triple
Commit transaction
With the assumption that the underlying transaction implementation will
batch the update to the storage layer?
Claude
On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM,
On 04/09/13 12:06, Claude Warren wrote:
Is the recommended migration path to do the following instead of the bulk
update:
Start a transaction
Insert each triple
Commit transaction
With the assumption that the underlying transaction implementation will
batch the update to the storage layer?
Hi Andy,
before I contacted this list I was doing some background reading to try
to figure out why the BulkUpdateHandler had been deleted, but you know
how difficult this can be by searching through mailing list archives.
And there is just too much traffic to stay up to date on a daily basis.
As I recall the discuss around this topic dealt with the idea that you
could add each triple inside a transaction and when the transaction
committed transaction code would do the bulk update if supported. However
I may be way off base here. I have no objection to retaining the BUH.
Claude
On
Hi group,
I did not see any response to my question below, which is usual for this
list where responses are usually fast and competent. As this is quite a
crucial issue for our upgrade right now, I would like to ask again, and
rephrase my question. I understand SDB is rather unsupported, but
