Removing TDB1 should be a longer deprecation cycle because its
persistent data and also because code deprecation does not show up to
Fuseki configuration file usage. So removal for 6.0.0 looks to me as too
savage.
We can start with @Deprecated and it does not have to be tied to 6.0.0.
I'll put in a PR. Its one of the easier ones to do because there are few
code entry points to TDB1.
Dave, Holger - I hope you and your organisations will investigate and
report on the use of TDB2.
Andy
On 14/05/2025 08:43, Holger Knublauch wrote:
We are also still on TDB 1 with our product. Needs some research on our side to
judge on the impact.
Holger
On May 14, 2025, at 09:19, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reyno...@gmail.com> wrote:
We, at least, are completely dependent on TDB 1. We've never managed to tame
the memory use growth in TDB2 enough to use it in production.
To be fair, it's been a while since we last tried.
Dave
On 14/05/2025 16:12, Andy Seaborne wrote:
>
> After https://github.com/apache/jena/issues/3015 (Jena 5.4.0), the
> release of space when using containers should be solved.
>
> If not, an example test case would be good.
