+1! Adam
On Wed, Jan 27, 2021, 4:31 PM Bruno P. Kinoshita <ki...@apache.org> wrote: > Makes sense to me, I'm only using TDB (I think I only ever used SDB > following an old tutorial for some inference or another tool that had used > SDB, long time ago). +1 > > On Thursday, 28 January 2021, 10:08:39 am NZDT, Andy Seaborne < > a...@apache.org> wrote: > > I checked with with VIVO and they are migtrating to TDB as the primary > store. > > https://jira.lyrasis.org/browse/VIVO-1741 > > If we retire SDB, they will do the same on their end. > > And anyway we can put it back again easily enough. > > The IRI changes (which include API changes) cause a few changes in SDB > because SDB is old and uses what are nowadays really non-public APIs. > It's easy to fix up, so if we archive just before the next release it'll > practical that anyone missing it can a version build immediately, not > wait for a release cycle. > > Andy > > On 25/01/2021 11:15, Andy Seaborne wrote: > > It is semi-retired saying "not suitable for new work". > > > > There's an open source project using it (vivoweb); they plan to move off > > it. Someone showed up awhile ago (about a year ago). So while they are > > migrating (and it isn't instant for them and their downstream), I'm > > happy to personally keep it alive for now for small things. I had a call > > with them back then and they know the situation. > > > > If the unlikely occurs and some major change is needed, it will get > > dropped from the build. I like this division of modules into "essential" > > and "droppable". > > > > Given SDB is not tightly integrated in with other parts of Jena (due to > > age), the mostly likely threat to it is a security risk. I would not > > want a release have a CVE against it just because of SDB. > > > > Then definitely; less is more. > > > > Andy > > > > On 23/01/2021 01:47, aj...@apache.org wrote: > >> Is SDB perhaps another candidate for retirement? > >> > >> Adam > >> > >> On Wed, Jan 20, 2021, 2:21 PM Andy Seaborne <a...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> On 01/01/2021 12:13, Andy Seaborne wrote: > >>>> Should we switch to Java11? > >>>> Proposal: > >>>> > >>>> 1/ Ask on users@ -- what we need is "new information" such as "I am > >>>> blocked from updating Java because ...", not "I haven't got round to > >>>> it". > >>>> > >>>> 2/ Switch to Java11 for the next release but not make so many changes > >>>> that we can't easily go back to Java8. > >>>> > >>>> Andy > >>> > >>> The discussion on users@ > >>> > >>> > >>> > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/re6bd2d266343a5dffc2b811df2ed63caea07196db42bb929a6b2fb7d%40%3Cusers.jena.apache.org%3E > >>> > >>> > >>> Points: > >>> * bump to Jena4. > >>> * request to keep a parallel 3.x branch (nice if resourced only if > >>> resourced) > >>> > >>> If Jena4, then are there any things we can do which won't significant > >>> impact the timescale - we can take longer of course but I think any > >>> major work item that would need several additional months, and all the > >>> risk of that slipping :-), really must be important. > >>> > >>> 1/ Mass removal of deprecated - a lot has been deprecated for many > >>> versions so removing it a 4.x seems reasonable. I hope people have been > >>> taking note but code can always return if necessary. > >>> > >>> 2/ Retire modules or remove code we do not want to migrate to Jena4, > >>> especially as we can still include it again later if there is > >>> unanticipated user demand. Again, a major version jump is a time to be > >>> bold(er); all code has cost. > >>> > >>> jena-text-es is a candidate from my point of view. No one is > maintaining > >>> it and it is complicated to setup and support. > >>> > >>> Andy > >>> > >> >
