Conflict libraries Jena 2.5.5 and Bundled jena in Protege 3.3.1

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
5 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Conflict libraries Jena 2.5.5 and Bundled jena in Protege 3.3.1

Mariano Rodriguez-Muro
Hi everybody, this one is about plugins and conflicting libraries.

Im using Jena 2.5.5 for our plugin, specifically for parsing SPARQL
queries. Im using the method Query.getQueryPattern().

The issue is that when I bundle my plugin inside protege, it tells me
that .getQueryPattern() is not defined. I traced the problem
down to a conflict between the version of Jena that comes with Protege
OWL 3.3.1 and Jena 2.5.5. It seems that the function is not
defined in the older version.

To corrected, I simply replaced the Jena libraries that come with
Protege-OWL and everything seems to be working fine.

The issue is, Its not optimal to require users to replace the Jena
libraries that come with Protege-OWL. Even there are no
aparent problems from doing so, its no assurance the they wont appear
in the future. More over, it complicates the deployment
process of our plugin.

Is it possible to insolate the libraries used by on plugin, so that
they dont interfere with others? Specifically, can it be done
for Jena?


Thank you again for all the help, it has always been a life saver.

Cheers,
Mariano


Mariano Rodriguez Muro
http://www.inf.unibz.it/~rodriguez/
------------------------------------------------------
KRDB Research Center
Faculty of Computer Science
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
Piazza Domenicani, 3
I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy


_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conflict libraries Jena 2.5.5 and Bundled jena in Protege 3.3.1

Jennifer Vendetti
Administrator
Mariano,

We have some documentation on our Wiki about how to avoid problems with
conflicting libraries:

http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/index.php/PluginDistribution

If you place all of the JAR files for your plug-in in a separate,
uniquely named subdirectory of the <protege-install-dir>/plugins
directory, your plug-in will be loaded by a separate class loader.  Have
you tried this?

At any rate, we will be upgrading to Jena 2.5.5 for the next beta build.

Jennifer

Mariano Rodriguez wrote:

> Hi everybody, this one is about plugins and conflicting libraries.
>
> Im using Jena 2.5.5 for our plugin, specifically for parsing SPARQL
> queries. Im using the method Query.getQueryPattern().
>
> The issue is that when I bundle my plugin inside protege, it tells me
> that .getQueryPattern() is not defined. I traced the problem
> down to a conflict between the version of Jena that comes with Protege
> OWL 3.3.1 and Jena 2.5.5. It seems that the function is not
> defined in the older version.
>
> To corrected, I simply replaced the Jena libraries that come with
> Protege-OWL and everything seems to be working fine.
>
> The issue is, Its not optimal to require users to replace the Jena
> libraries that come with Protege-OWL. Even there are no
> aparent problems from doing so, its no assurance the they wont appear
> in the future. More over, it complicates the deployment
> process of our plugin.
>
> Is it possible to insolate the libraries used by on plugin, so that
> they dont interfere with others? Specifically, can it be done
> for Jena?
>
>
> Thank you again for all the help, it has always been a life saver.
>
> Cheers,
> Mariano
>
>
> Mariano Rodriguez Muro
> http://www.inf.unibz.it/~rodriguez/
> ------------------------------------------------------
> KRDB Research Center
> Faculty of Computer Science
> Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
> Piazza Domenicani, 3
> I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
>  
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conflict libraries Jena 2.5.5 and Bundled jena in Protege 3.3.1

Mariano Rodriguez-Muro
Hi Jennifer thank you for the answer,

I tried putting the Jena jars there, but the problem is the same. It  
only gets solved if I replace the jena files that come with the owl  
plugin with the Jena 2.5.5 ones. Which is not so nice cause it could  
introduce bugs in protege-owl and requiring this to the user is a  
burden.

Any other possible solutions? Btw, how stable are the beta builds?  
should one consider them already a replacement for 3.3.1? When can one  
expect the next beta build?

Thank you very much again Jennifer

Cheers, Mariano

On May 29, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Jennifer Vendetti wrote:

> Mariano,
>
> We have some documentation on our Wiki about how to avoid problems  
> with
> conflicting libraries:
>
> http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/index.php/PluginDistribution
>
> If you place all of the JAR files for your plug-in in a separate,
> uniquely named subdirectory of the <protege-install-dir>/plugins
> directory, your plug-in will be loaded by a separate class loader.  
> Have
> you tried this?
>
> At any rate, we will be upgrading to Jena 2.5.5 for the next beta  
> build.
>
> Jennifer
>
> Mariano Rodriguez wrote:
>> Hi everybody, this one is about plugins and conflicting libraries.
>>
>> Im using Jena 2.5.5 for our plugin, specifically for parsing SPARQL
>> queries. Im using the method Query.getQueryPattern().
>>
>> The issue is that when I bundle my plugin inside protege, it tells me
>> that .getQueryPattern() is not defined. I traced the problem
>> down to a conflict between the version of Jena that comes with  
>> Protege
>> OWL 3.3.1 and Jena 2.5.5. It seems that the function is not
>> defined in the older version.
>>
>> To corrected, I simply replaced the Jena libraries that come with
>> Protege-OWL and everything seems to be working fine.
>>
>> The issue is, Its not optimal to require users to replace the Jena
>> libraries that come with Protege-OWL. Even there are no
>> aparent problems from doing so, its no assurance the they wont appear
>> in the future. More over, it complicates the deployment
>> process of our plugin.
>>
>> Is it possible to insolate the libraries used by on plugin, so that
>> they dont interfere with others? Specifically, can it be done
>> for Jena?
>>
>>
>> Thank you again for all the help, it has always been a life saver.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Mariano
>>
>>
>> Mariano Rodriguez Muro
>> http://www.inf.unibz.it/~rodriguez/
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> KRDB Research Center
>> Faculty of Computer Science
>> Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
>> Piazza Domenicani, 3
>> I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>> _______________________________________________
>> protege-owl mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>>
>> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
>>
> _______________________________________________
> protege-owl mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl
>
> Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

Mariano Rodriguez Muro
http://www.inf.unibz.it/~rodriguez/
------------------------------------------------------
KRDB Research Center
Faculty of Computer Science
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
Piazza Domenicani, 3
I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy


_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Conflict libraries Jena 2.5.5 and Bundled jena in Protege 3.3.1

Jennifer Vendetti
Administrator
Mariano,

Sorry that I did not read your original message carefully enough.  We do not support the scenario where two plug-ins that are dependent on each other use conflicting versions of the same library.  In your case, you could either wait for the next beta build (probably late next week), or you could update your code to the latest revision from our Subversion repository where we have already upgraded to Jena 2.5.5:

http://smi-protege.stanford.edu/repos/protege/owl/trunk/

In terms of your other question, we are planning to release 3.4 sometime early this summer, so I would recommend trying out these builds vs. the 3.3.1 release, which came out in August of '07.

Jennifer

Mariano Rodriguez wrote:
Hi Jennifer thank you for the answer,

I tried putting the Jena jars there, but the problem is the same. It  
only gets solved if I replace the jena files that come with the owl  
plugin with the Jena 2.5.5 ones. Which is not so nice cause it could  
introduce bugs in protege-owl and requiring this to the user is a  
burden.

Any other possible solutions? Btw, how stable are the beta builds?  
should one consider them already a replacement for 3.3.1? When can one  
expect the next beta build?

Thank you very much again Jennifer

Cheers, Mariano

On May 29, 2008, at 2:35 AM, Jennifer Vendetti wrote:

  
Mariano,

We have some documentation on our Wiki about how to avoid problems  
with
conflicting libraries:

http://protegewiki.stanford.edu/index.php/PluginDistribution

If you place all of the JAR files for your plug-in in a separate,
uniquely named subdirectory of the <protege-install-dir>/plugins
directory, your plug-in will be loaded by a separate class loader.   
Have
you tried this?

At any rate, we will be upgrading to Jena 2.5.5 for the next beta  
build.

Jennifer

Mariano Rodriguez wrote:
    
Hi everybody, this one is about plugins and conflicting libraries.

Im using Jena 2.5.5 for our plugin, specifically for parsing SPARQL
queries. Im using the method Query.getQueryPattern().

The issue is that when I bundle my plugin inside protege, it tells me
that .getQueryPattern() is not defined. I traced the problem
down to a conflict between the version of Jena that comes with  
Protege
OWL 3.3.1 and Jena 2.5.5. It seems that the function is not
defined in the older version.

To corrected, I simply replaced the Jena libraries that come with
Protege-OWL and everything seems to be working fine.

The issue is, Its not optimal to require users to replace the Jena
libraries that come with Protege-OWL. Even there are no
aparent problems from doing so, its no assurance the they wont appear
in the future. More over, it complicates the deployment
process of our plugin.

Is it possible to insolate the libraries used by on plugin, so that
they dont interfere with others? Specifically, can it be done
for Jena?


Thank you again for all the help, it has always been a life saver.

Cheers,
Mariano


Mariano Rodriguez Muro
http://www.inf.unibz.it/~rodriguez/
------------------------------------------------------
KRDB Research Center
Faculty of Computer Science
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
Piazza Domenicani, 3
I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy


_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03

      
_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03
    

Mariano Rodriguez Muro
http://www.inf.unibz.it/~rodriguez/
------------------------------------------------------
KRDB Research Center
Faculty of Computer Science
Free University of Bozen-Bolzano (FUB)
Piazza Domenicani, 3
I-39100 Bozen-Bolzano BZ, Italy


_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
  

_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Changes in the database backend schema

Alan March
Hi Jennifer et al

Given the fact that as of build 500 "the database schema used by the
database back-end has changed in an incompatible way", would it be possible
for you to publish some documentation similar to the "jdbc back-end design
rationale" page? Or maybe some document pointing out the differences between
the former and the present schema as well as changes in the meaning of the
values allowed for each column?

Many thanks!

Alan


_______________________________________________
protege-owl mailing list
[hidden email]
https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/protege-owl

Instructions for unsubscribing: http://protege.stanford.edu/doc/faq.html#01a.03