On 16/01/12 09:19, Andy Seaborne wrote:
On 08/01/12 19:27, Andy Seaborne wrote:
The release of core/ARQ etc. hasn't lead to any immediate disasters (but
there is still time!) so we can move on to TDB.
As far as I'm concerned, the code in the current snapshot and in SVN is
release candidate code (JENA-102 is fixed) and if people don't test it
(I've pinged jena-users@), then they risk it taking longer to get a
released version with fixes.
I need to write the transaction API documentation and there is something
odd in the prefix handling but as far as I can see, it's been odd for
some time, maybe all time; it needs reworking, not fixing so shouldn't
block a release.
Andy
PS Fuseki snapshot is using TDB transactions now.
Slight delay - the reports on jena-users about Fuseki might be
TDB-related or might be Fuseki-related. I want to investigate them first.
Other than that, I just about the stage the release ... :-(
Andy
OK - back on track, hopelfully. It turns out that not all the
transaction code was properly wired in in TDB. It was not a Fuseki problem.
As pert of much clearup, the original, rather detailed and manual set
for transactions has been shuffled out of the main package and a
DatasetGraph equivalent of the Dataset API is presented:
http://incubator.apache.org/jena/documentation/tdb/tdb_transactions.html#api_for_transactions
Incidentally - Simon - it is possible that issues around query
performance are improved. It was using the general query engine.
Whether this caught your performance tests or not depends on how you
were creating transaction code.
Andy
