Bug #63001 for RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy: does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1

Mon Nov 15 12:55:07 2010 MTHURN [...] cpan.org - Ticket created

Subject:

does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1

Hi, I am wondering if you have plans to update this module to work with AllegroGraph 4.1 If you don't have such plans, I would like to do it for you 8-) But then we would need to figure out how to ensure backward-compatibility, etc. -- - - Martin 'Kingpin' Thurn

Tue Nov 16 02:12:55 2010 drrho [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

On Mon Nov 15 12:55:07 2010, MTHURN wrote: Show quoted text

> I am wondering if you have plans to update this module to work with > AllegroGraph 4.1 > If you don't have such plans, I would like to do it for you 8-)

But Show quoted text

> then we would need to figure out how to ensure backward-

compatibility, etc. Hi Martin, In fact I have already started to implement the 4.x protocol, together with some features not covered in the Perl AG 3.x version. But I ran out of (self-funded) time :-] Backward-compatibility is an issue, but maybe not an extremely big one. I - for myself - would prefer to have the 3.x and the 4.x version of the protocol completely separated. It is my fault not to have designed the package structure "versionable". Feel free to take a stab at it, it is mostly straightforward work. Bear in mind, though, that in real life data sizes shipped to/from the server can be substantial (RDF is noisy in all serializations). This means that - after a functional coverage of the AG protocol - a lot of work should (MUST) be invested to cope with speed/size. If you look at the Python client you will see what I mean. If you are prepared to walk this thorny way :-) I am only to happy to share distribution ownership! \rho

Tue Nov 16 02:12:56 2010 The RT System itself - Status changed from 'new' to 'open'

Thu Nov 18 22:21:48 2010 kingpin [...] dcswcc.org - Correspondence added

Subject:	RE: [rt.cpan.org #63001] does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1
Date:	Thu, 18 Nov 2010 22:21:34 -0500
To:	<bug-RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy [...] rt.cpan.org>, <MTHURN [...] cpan.org>
From:	"Martin Thurn" <kingpin [...] dcswcc.org>

From the little I looked at the current modules and the 4.1 interfaces, it seemed like a separate distribution would be the "easiest" and perhaps most sensible way to go. I would definitely like to take a stab at it... If I miss the mark, we're no worse off than we are now 8-) Can you send me what you have done so far? - - Martin Show quoted text

> -----Original Message----- > From: Robert Barta via RT > [mailto:bug-RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy@rt.cpan.org] > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 02:13 > To: MTHURN@cpan.org > Subject: [rt.cpan.org #63001] does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1 > > <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=63001 > > > On Mon Nov 15 12:55:07 2010, MTHURN wrote:

> > I am wondering if you have plans to update this module to

> work with

> > AllegroGraph 4.1 > > If you don't have such plans, I would like to do it for you 8-)

> But

> > then we would need to figure out how to ensure backward-

> compatibility, etc. > > Hi Martin, > > In fact I have already started to implement the 4.x protocol, together > with some features not covered in the Perl AG 3.x version. But I ran > out > of (self-funded) time :-] > > Backward-compatibility is an issue, but maybe not an > extremely big one. > I - for myself - would prefer to have the 3.x and the 4.x version of > the protocol completely separated. It is my fault not to have designed > the package structure "versionable". > > Feel free to take a stab at it, it is mostly straightforward work. > > Bear in mind, though, that in real life data sizes shipped to/from > the server can be substantial (RDF is noisy in all serializations). > This means that - after a functional coverage of the AG protocol - > a lot of work should (MUST) be invested to cope with speed/size. > > If you look at the Python client you will see what I mean. If you > are prepared to walk this thorny way :-) I am only to happy to share > distribution ownership! > > \rho >

Fri Nov 19 02:03:56 2010 rho [...] devc.at - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #63001] does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1
Date:	Fri, 19 Nov 2010 08:03:40 +0100
To:	"kingpin [...] dcswcc.org via RT" <bug-RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy [...] rt.cpan.org>
From:	Robert Barta <rho [...] devc.at>

On Thu, Nov 18, 2010 at 10:21:49PM -0500, kingpin@dcswcc.org via RT wrote: Show quoted text

> From the little I looked at the current modules and the 4.1 > interfaces, it seemed like a separate distribution would be the > "easiest" and perhaps most sensible way to go. I would definitely > like to take a stab at it... If I miss the mark, we're no worse off > than we are now 8-)

Well, a separate distribution is more messy. But given the messiness level of the CPAN ... who cares. If we can manage to keep the outer API similar, maybe we merge them at some later point. Show quoted text

> Can you send me what you have done so far?

It's in a complete state of disarray as I have been experimenting wildly. So I'm reluctant to give this away. \rho Show quoted text

> > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert Barta via RT > > [mailto:bug-RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy@rt.cpan.org] > > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 02:13 > > To: MTHURN@cpan.org > > Subject: [rt.cpan.org #63001] does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1 > > > > <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=63001 > > > > > On Mon Nov 15 12:55:07 2010, MTHURN wrote:

> > > I am wondering if you have plans to update this module to

> > work with

> > > AllegroGraph 4.1 > > > If you don't have such plans, I would like to do it for you 8-)

> > But

> > > then we would need to figure out how to ensure backward-

> > compatibility, etc. > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > In fact I have already started to implement the 4.x protocol, together > > with some features not covered in the Perl AG 3.x version. But I ran > > out > > of (self-funded) time :-] > > > > Backward-compatibility is an issue, but maybe not an > > extremely big one. > > I - for myself - would prefer to have the 3.x and the 4.x version of > > the protocol completely separated. It is my fault not to have designed > > the package structure "versionable". > > > > Feel free to take a stab at it, it is mostly straightforward work. > > > > Bear in mind, though, that in real life data sizes shipped to/from > > the server can be substantial (RDF is noisy in all serializations). > > This means that - after a functional coverage of the AG protocol - > > a lot of work should (MUST) be invested to cope with speed/size. > > > > If you look at the Python client you will see what I mean. If you > > are prepared to walk this thorny way :-) I am only to happy to share > > distribution ownership! > > > > \rho > >

> > >

Fri Dec 24 19:09:25 2010 MTHURN [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added 500 min

Sorry it took so long. Attached is a distro that works with AllegroGraph 3.3 and 4.1.1. I started working on a redesign/rewrite for 4.1, but when I looked at the protocol it was pretty similar, so I just made changes to the 0.50 distro. I tried to change as little as possible, apologies in advance if I ended up uglifying any of your code. I did not add any new functionality, basically I just got it so all the existing tests pass. Also I just realized that I didn't update any of the documentation.

Subject:

RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy-0.678.tar.gz

Download RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy-0.678.tar.gz
application/x-gzip 20.9k

Message body not shown because it is not plain text.

Mon Jan 03 14:13:45 2011 rho [...] devc.at - Correspondence added

Subject:	Re: [rt.cpan.org #63001] does not work with AllegroGraph 4.1
Date:	Mon, 3 Jan 2011 20:13:35 +0100
To:	Martin Thurn via RT <bug-RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy [...] rt.cpan.org>
From:	Robert Barta <rho [...] devc.at>

On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 07:09:25PM -0500, Martin Thurn via RT wrote: Show quoted text

> Queue: RDF-AllegroGraph-Easy > Ticket <URL: https://rt.cpan.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=63001 > > > Sorry it took so long. Attached is a distro that works with > AllegroGraph 3.3 and 4.1.1. I started working on a redesign/rewrite for > 4.1, but when I looked at the protocol it was pretty similar, so I just > made changes to the 0.50 distro.

Hi Martin, Yes. :-) The necessary changes are fewer than I expected, but I will have a closer look how we could keep v3 and v4 protocols separate. I am old enough to expect a version v5 at some point ;-) And *then* I do not want to worry about side effects to older protocol versions. Show quoted text

> I tried to change as little as possible, apologies in advance if I > ended up uglifying any of your code. I did not add any new > functionality, basically I just got it so all the existing tests > pass. Also I just realized that I didn't update any of the > documentation.

That's ok, I have enough now to go on. Just let me find a unused time slice so that I can reorganize things a bit and publish an official v0.6 onto CPAN. Thx! \rho

Wed Jan 19 10:22:41 2011 drrho [...] cpan.org - Correspondence added

RT-Send-CC:

rho [...] devc.at, kingpin [...] dcswcc.org

On Mon Jan 03 14:13:45 2011, rho@devc.at wrote: Show quoted text

> > That's ok, I have enough now to go on. Just let me find a unused > time slice so that I can reorganize things a bit and publish an > official v0.6 onto CPAN.

I just have uploaded 0.06. Rough on the edges, though. \rho

Wed Jan 19 10:22:42 2011 drrho [...] cpan.org - Status changed from 'open' to 'resolved'