[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-4?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15611268#comment-15611268
]
Stian Soiland-Reyes commented on COMMONSRDF-4:
----------------------------------------------
I think locks and/or transactions will need to be shared, as Andy points out
they should be at Dataset/repository level, which may affect multiple Graphs.
> Transaction Model
> -----------------
>
> Key: COMMONSRDF-4
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/COMMONSRDF-4
> Project: Apache Commons RDF
> Issue Type: New Feature
> Reporter: Stian Soiland-Reyes (old)
> Priority: Minor
> Labels: graph, transaction, transaqctio
>
> From https://github.com/commons-rdf/commons-rdf/issues/20
> wastl:
> {quote}
> In triple stores that have some sort of persistence, a transaction model is
> an important concept. I'd like to open the discussion how this can be
> integrated in a nice way with the pure OO commons-rdf. No real suggestion on
> this yet, though.
> {quote}
> ansell:
> {quote}
> I think this is outside of our current scope. We are trying to get something
> small and tightly defined to do an initial experiment, which in some cases
> will only be compatibility modules, not natively using commons-rdf.
> The Graph is focused (from my perspective) on being an in-memory
> representation, although it could be backed by a persistent store if a store
> implemented a wrapper for it.
> {quote}
> afs:
> {quote}
> Let's see if the current, limited scope is successful before embarking on
> something grander.
> @wasti, What would be good is experimentation an discussion ... no need to
> wait!
> {quote}
> ansell:
> {quote}
> @wastl, now is probably a good time to experiment with this.
> {quote}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
