>
>>
>>
>> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 8:29 AM
>> From: "Laura Morales" <laure...@mail.com>
>> To: users@jena.apache.org
>> Cc: users@jena.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: client/server communication protocol
>> Am not saying one i
ed to a
> custom protocol programmed on a lower level socket.
>
>
>
>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2018 at 8:11 AM
> From: "Lorenz Buehmann" <buehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
> To: users@jena.apache.org
> Subject: Re: client/server communication protocol
>
ure...@mail.com>
> To: users@jena.apache.org
> Cc: users@jena.apache.org
> Subject: Re: client/server communication protocol
> Am not saying one is better or worse than the other, I'm merely trying to
> understand. If I understand correctly Fuseki is responsible for handling
>
From: "Laura Morales" <laure...@mail.com>
To: users@jena.apache.org
Cc: users@jena.apache.org
Subject: Re: client/server communication protocol
Am not saying one is better or worse than the other, I'm merely trying to
understand. If I understand correctly Fuseki is responsi
:11 AM
From: "Lorenz Buehmann" <buehm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
To: users@jena.apache.org
Subject: Re: client/server communication protocol
Well, Fuseki is exactly the HTTP layer on top of Jena. Without Fuseki,
which protocol do you want to use to communicate with Jena? The SP
Well, Fuseki is exactly the HTTP layer on top of Jena. Without Fuseki,
which protocol do you want to use to communicate with Jena? The SPARQL
protocol [1] perfectly standardizes the communication via HTTP. Without
Fuseki, who should do the HTTP handling? Clearly, you could setup your
own Java
