I managed to get time to run the build with 3.8.0 and the problem is fixed. with that version.
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 3:34 PM, Claude Warren <[email protected]> wrote: > I create an RDFConnection to a local Model (from > ModelFactory.createDefaultModel() > ) (yeah I know that is a strange way to go about it but I am trying to > isolate the code using the RDFConnection to ensure that we can talk to > remote repositories) > > So what is happening is > > RDFConnection is called to perform an update. > The model is updated > A listener on the model detects a change and attempts to execute an ASK > query through same RDFConnection and the exception is thrown. > > I'll try 3.8.0 as soon as I can (probably tomorrow) > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:20 PM, Andy Seaborne <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sounds familiar. >> >> Could you try 3.8.0 please. >> JENA-1539 >> >> >> On 09/08/18 12:58, Claude Warren wrote: >> >>> I get the following exception in some code in 3.7.0 but not in 3.6.0 >>> >>> Exception in thread "SemaphoreListener" >>> org.apache.jena.sparql.JenaTransactionException: >>> Already in a transaction of a different type: outer=WRITE : inner=READ >>> >> >> How are you using transactions (what's the stack)? >> >> >>> The statement is correct. But I thought that a READ was possible when a >>> Write was active. >>> >> >> Yes but this is not what it is about. >> >> This is one transaction inside another. True nested tranactions aren't >> supported. Instead, the current transaction is continued if it is >> compatible: current=W wanted inner=R is compatible, current=R, wanted=W is >> not. >> >> >>> In the code I have a ModelListener that when it sees a specific change >>> executes an Ask query. both the original insert and the ask are executed >>> via an RDFConnection (and perhaps herein lays the problem?) >>> >> >> What sort of RDFConnection? >> >> >> >>> Does the RDFConnection start a new transaction? If I executed query >>> directly against the model that the update was in (rather than via the >>> RDFConnection) would that put both queries within the same execution? >>> >>> Claude >>> >>> >>> >>> > > > -- > I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web > <http://like-like.xenei.com> > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren > -- I like: Like Like - The likeliest place on the web <http://like-like.xenei.com> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/claudewarren
