namedgraph commented on PR #3184: URL: https://github.com/apache/jena/pull/3184#issuecomment-3289609173
Unrelated but `DatasetGraphOverSparql`, `DatasetGraphOverRDFLink` etc. look like the wrong design to me. They wrap the transport implementations inside what should be RDF spec implementations (`Model` and `Dataset`). That is a dead-end IMO because the class hierarchy becomes open-ended - every new transport (let's imagine, I don't know, some binary-based protocol) will now require a new `Dataset` subclass. Using inheritance this way feels wrong to me. IMO the transport details should be handled by clients external to `Dataset`, e.g. the same `StreamRDFToUpdateRequest.sendGraphTriplesToStream(graph, graphName, sink);` that is used in this PR (although I'm not crazy about that class either 😅 ). The number of `Model`/`Dataset` implementations should stay finite - implement the specs and then subclass for some transactional/TDB mechanisms but that's it. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
