Sure!
Reto Gmür schreef op 15-1-2015 om 10:06: > Hi Minto, > > Thanks a lot for your valuable comments. Would you mind reposting to > the mailing list as to have tis discussion public? > > Cheers, > Reto > > On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Minto van der Sluis <mi...@xup.nl > <mailto:mi...@xup.nl>> wrote: > > Hi Reto, > > Thanks for showing interest in my opinion. > > First of all the whole discussion around commons-rdf involves way to > much religion. Religion as in: my implemention should be reference > implementation. IMO commons-rdf should be about designing the best RDF > API and not about making some implementation fit that API. > > On the API itself: > 1) I am glad you chose to derive from Collections. This opens up the > possibility to use Java 8 streams to improve performance especially in > the filter() method. > 2) Hmm, is filter() still required if we can use java 8 streams > (collection.stream().filter())? > 3) I dislike BlankNodeOrIri interface name. Judging from the > github:commons-rdf comments the name should be Subject. Taking your > comments Resource might be a better name. BTW, the comments for this > interface differ between your sandbox and the github commons-rdf. > 4) Why does GraphEvent only has one triple? What if you remove/add a > large number triples? > 5) Events are not ready for extension. AddEvent accually is something > like AddedTriple(s)Event. Same for remove. The (s) depends on the > outcome of the previous point. See next point for additional events. > 6) The API misses facilities to access/create/query graphs. If > this gets > included you probably also end up with events like AddedGraphEvent > ditto > for remove. For this I envision something along the lines of JDBC and > DataSources. > 7) Also the whole event mechanism might be extremely difficult to > realise. Of course from within the implementation it is easy, but > think > distributed here. Take for instance a sparql endpoints. It is > relativily > straightforward to create an implementation for this except for the > eventing part. I wouldn't know how to implement eventing without > polling > the sparql endpoint every so often. Shouldn't events be something > additional/optional. > > So far for quickly scanning things. > > Personally I'd also like to see a pure in memory based > implementation it > not only makes testing things easier for the API users, but also > helps focus > on what is best for a clean/clear API. Like I mentioned before, > the API > should be leading NOT the implementation. Also a test > compatibility kit > (TCK) might come in handy to ensure other implementations work as > expected. > > And if we get this far we might as well try to make it a standard by > submitting a JSR ;-) > > Regards, > > Minto > > > Reto Gmür schreef op 14-1-2015 om 15:15: > > Hi Minto > > > > I would be very interested to learn abou your opinion on the > > commons-rdf proposal I recently committed. > > > > Cheers, > > Reto >
