Hi Qihong Lin,
On 31/07/14 12:18, Qihong Lin wrote:
I'm sorry I can't understand you questions. It's appreciated if you
can help me clarify these:
I just pretend to make you stater to think about the conclusions of the
project now that the closing date is coming.
1) If what changes in the new alternative CDI service is just the
invocations to the RepositoryConnection (I'd need to check the diff to
really assert that), would it still make sense to you to provide an
alternative CDIservice?
What do you mean by the "new alternative CDI service", and "an
alternative CDIservice"? I'm now translating the CDI service
(LdpServiceImpl) into SPARQL implementation. If anything changes, I
can translate it accordingly. Is that enough?
Yes, for the project is enough, that was the goal.
The question is I'd like to evaluate not only what you did, but what you
have learned too. So for the conclusions you could write something
discussing such aspects: that "was the right approach because...", "not
sure because both CDI service duplicate too much business code", etc.
2) Or would be more maintainable to move the translation into an
RepositoryConnection wrapper or something like that?
What's "an RepositoryConnection wrapper"? Why do we need that (i.e.
why more maintainable )? Can you show me an example? Thanks!
I'm not saying that's valid. Probably not. Just trying to trigger your
inquisitiveness ;-)
Not sure if you follow me. If you want, we can have a spype call
(sergio.fernandez.lopez) before Tuesday to talk about that.
Thanks!
Cheers,
--
Sergio Fernández
Partner Technology Manager
Redlink GmbH
m: +43 660 2747 925
e: sergio.fernan...@redlink.co
w: http://redlink.co
