You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tinkerpop.apache.org by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com> on 2018/10/30 10:03:03 UTC
[DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be. We've
migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1]. We've even
introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the basis for
TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's neat new
work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really promising.
There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the thinking for
what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes in the
graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they are
aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled systems.
We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can feel
confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their best
interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in building
their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves so that
we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines. Months
ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our mailing
lists[5].
The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread unevenly
across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together into a
single coherent document. This document explains the history of the
TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified or
fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that background
context.
There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a starting
date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such development
would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document does not
yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going to
suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility seems
achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode to TP4
bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront in our
minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible.
At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list strips
attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely released
yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested in
reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share the PDF
with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread though.
[1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
[2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
[3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
[4]
https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
[5] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
Marko informed me late yesterday that he will be leaving what internet he
has in a few days (and won't have any for several weeks after) so he
intends to publish this document tomorrow morning for announcement on
friday. Here's a few thoughts of my own to share as I reflect on what I'm
reading:
1. This reads as it should, more overly broad direction than implementation
- meaning, it doesn't spend any real time saying "how" any of this will
work. There will be lots of further discussion on this list to determine
that when the time comes.
2. I think this document helps shape our "future" document[1] which I hope
we can make nicer with this vision as guidance. Hopefully, more "how" ideas
will start to show up there.
3. Nice to have a documented history of the project somewhere to reference.
Interesting how these different versions have built upon one another over
the years
4. I really don't like the solution for multi/metaproperties. I think the
old tried/true property graph model from TP 1.x and 2.x is sufficient, but
i won't start a big discussion on it now.
5. I wonder to what extent we can evolve TP3 with TP4 - I think our
compatibility story is really really nice and should give users and graph
providers a ton of confidence in our direction.
[1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:34 PM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Sorry, I hit send a little too soon I had something to add from Marko who
> said something in response to my email suggesting that we include a note on
> "compatibility" (which he did in the manner I described - i.e. bytecode
> translation). He said that we shouldn't think of TP3 as "the old version"
> and TP4 as "the new version". He's seeing it more as "two strains that
> continue to evolve". I also don't see TP3 immediately going end-of-life
> over TP4, but I think his way of saying it is nicer and embodies a harmony
> that TP4 seems to be shaping around it.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> A point of clarification regarding the document and its usage - it is a
>> DRAFT and not meant for wide distribution. I'm trying to encourage feedback
>> from those here who have active interest in the development of our project.
>> So please keep access to yourself if you requested it.
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM Keith Lohnes <lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hey Stephen,
>>> I'd be interested in taking a look at the doc.
>>>
>>> -Keith
>>>
>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:17 PM Divij Vaidya <di...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > I would like to review the document as well please.
>>> >
>>> > Regards
>>> > Divij
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:10 AM Stephen Mallette <spmallette@gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > yes - reviews/comments are open to anyone interested. i will share it
>>> > with
>>> > > you - it's a PDF in google drive.
>>> > >
>>> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:07 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd
>>> > > enjoy a
>>> > > > chance to see it as well.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us
>>> that
>>> > > > consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you
>>> > takes
>>> > > > in moving this technology forward.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > -Josh
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Josh Perryman
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
>>> > > >
>>> > > > 713.569.6533 <(713)%20569-6533> / @JoshPerryman <
>>> > https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> /
>>> > > LinkedIn
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
>>> > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <
>>> > spmallette@gmail.com
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be.
>>> > We've
>>> > > > > > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1].
>>> > We've
>>> > > > > even
>>> > > > > > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the
>>> > basis
>>> > > > for
>>> > > > > > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's
>>> > neat
>>> > > > new
>>> > > > > > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really
>>> > > > promising.
>>> > > > > > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the
>>> > > thinking
>>> > > > > for
>>> > > > > > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop
>>> takes
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > the
>>> > > > > > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that
>>> they
>>> > > are
>>> > > > > > aware of the benefits they gain by considering
>>> TinkerPop-enabled
>>> > > > systems.
>>> > > > > > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they
>>> can
>>> > feel
>>> > > > > > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in
>>> their
>>> > best
>>> > > > > > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in
>>> > > > building
>>> > > > > > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for
>>> ourselves
>>> > so
>>> > > > > that
>>> > > > > > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those
>>> lines.
>>> > > > Months
>>> > > > > > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on
>>> our
>>> > > > mailing
>>> > > > > > lists[5].
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread
>>> > unevenly
>>> > > > > > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work
>>> with
>>> > > > > > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together
>>> > into
>>> > > a
>>> > > > > > single coherent document. This document explains the history
>>> of the
>>> > > > > > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously
>>> unified
>>> > > or
>>> > > > > > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that
>>> > > background
>>> > > > > > context.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a
>>> > > > starting
>>> > > > > > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such
>>> > > > development
>>> > > > > > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The
>>> document
>>> > > does
>>> > > > > not
>>> > > > > > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified -
>>> going
>>> > > to
>>> > > > > > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward
>>> compatibility
>>> > > > > seems
>>> > > > > > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3
>>> bytecode
>>> > to
>>> > > > TP4
>>> > > > > > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility
>>> forefront
>>> > > in
>>> > > > > our
>>> > > > > > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as
>>> possible.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
>>> > > > > > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list
>>> > > strips
>>> > > > > > attachments and I don't really want to make this document
>>> widely
>>> > > > released
>>> > > > > > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are
>>> interested
>>> > in
>>> > > > > > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will
>>> share
>>> > > the
>>> > > > > PDF
>>> > > > > > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this
>>> thread
>>> > > > though.
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
>>> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
>>> > > > > > [3]
>>> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
>>> > > > > > [4]
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
>>> > > > > > [5]
>>> > > > >
>>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
>>> > > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> > --
>>> > Divij Vaidya
>>> >
>>>
>>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, I hit send a little too soon I had something to add from Marko who
said something in response to my email suggesting that we include a note on
"compatibility" (which he did in the manner I described - i.e. bytecode
translation). He said that we shouldn't think of TP3 as "the old version"
and TP4 as "the new version". He's seeing it more as "two strains that
continue to evolve". I also don't see TP3 immediately going end-of-life
over TP4, but I think his way of saying it is nicer and embodies a harmony
that TP4 seems to be shaping around it.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 2:14 PM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> A point of clarification regarding the document and its usage - it is a
> DRAFT and not meant for wide distribution. I'm trying to encourage feedback
> from those here who have active interest in the development of our project.
> So please keep access to yourself if you requested it.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM Keith Lohnes <lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hey Stephen,
>> I'd be interested in taking a look at the doc.
>>
>> -Keith
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:17 PM Divij Vaidya <di...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I would like to review the document as well please.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Divij
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:10 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > yes - reviews/comments are open to anyone interested. i will share it
>> > with
>> > > you - it's a PDF in google drive.
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:07 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd
>> > > enjoy a
>> > > > chance to see it as well.
>> > > >
>> > > > And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us
>> that
>> > > > consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you
>> > takes
>> > > > in moving this technology forward.
>> > > >
>> > > > -Josh
>> > > >
>> > > > Josh Perryman
>> > > >
>> > > > Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
>> > > >
>> > > > 713.569.6533 <(713)%20569-6533> / @JoshPerryman <
>> > https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> /
>> > > LinkedIn
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
>> > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <
>> > spmallette@gmail.com
>> > > >
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be.
>> > We've
>> > > > > > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1].
>> > We've
>> > > > > even
>> > > > > > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the
>> > basis
>> > > > for
>> > > > > > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's
>> > neat
>> > > > new
>> > > > > > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really
>> > > > promising.
>> > > > > > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the
>> > > thinking
>> > > > > for
>> > > > > > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop
>> takes
>> > > in
>> > > > > the
>> > > > > > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that
>> they
>> > > are
>> > > > > > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled
>> > > > systems.
>> > > > > > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can
>> > feel
>> > > > > > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their
>> > best
>> > > > > > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in
>> > > > building
>> > > > > > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for
>> ourselves
>> > so
>> > > > > that
>> > > > > > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those
>> lines.
>> > > > Months
>> > > > > > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our
>> > > > mailing
>> > > > > > lists[5].
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread
>> > unevenly
>> > > > > > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work
>> with
>> > > > > > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together
>> > into
>> > > a
>> > > > > > single coherent document. This document explains the history of
>> the
>> > > > > > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously
>> unified
>> > > or
>> > > > > > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that
>> > > background
>> > > > > > context.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a
>> > > > starting
>> > > > > > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such
>> > > > development
>> > > > > > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The
>> document
>> > > does
>> > > > > not
>> > > > > > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified -
>> going
>> > > to
>> > > > > > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward
>> compatibility
>> > > > > seems
>> > > > > > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3
>> bytecode
>> > to
>> > > > TP4
>> > > > > > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility
>> forefront
>> > > in
>> > > > > our
>> > > > > > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as
>> possible.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
>> > > > > > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list
>> > > strips
>> > > > > > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely
>> > > > released
>> > > > > > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are
>> interested
>> > in
>> > > > > > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will
>> share
>> > > the
>> > > > > PDF
>> > > > > > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this
>> thread
>> > > > though.
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
>> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
>> > > > > > [3]
>> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
>> > > > > > [4]
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
>> > > > > > [5]
>> > > > >
>> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
>> > > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > --
>> > Divij Vaidya
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
A point of clarification regarding the document and its usage - it is a
DRAFT and not meant for wide distribution. I'm trying to encourage feedback
from those here who have active interest in the development of our project.
So please keep access to yourself if you requested it.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:12 PM Keith Lohnes <lo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Stephen,
> I'd be interested in taking a look at the doc.
>
> -Keith
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:17 PM Divij Vaidya <di...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I would like to review the document as well please.
> >
> > Regards
> > Divij
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:10 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > yes - reviews/comments are open to anyone interested. i will share it
> > with
> > > you - it's a PDF in google drive.
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:07 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd
> > > enjoy a
> > > > chance to see it as well.
> > > >
> > > > And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us
> that
> > > > consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you
> > takes
> > > > in moving this technology forward.
> > > >
> > > > -Josh
> > > >
> > > > Josh Perryman
> > > >
> > > > Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
> > > >
> > > > 713.569.6533 <(713)%20569-6533> / @JoshPerryman <
> > https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> /
> > > LinkedIn
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
> > > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <
> > spmallette@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be.
> > We've
> > > > > > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1].
> > We've
> > > > > even
> > > > > > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the
> > basis
> > > > for
> > > > > > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's
> > neat
> > > > new
> > > > > > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really
> > > > promising.
> > > > > > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the
> > > thinking
> > > > > for
> > > > > > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop
> takes
> > > in
> > > > > the
> > > > > > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that
> they
> > > are
> > > > > > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled
> > > > systems.
> > > > > > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can
> > feel
> > > > > > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their
> > best
> > > > > > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in
> > > > building
> > > > > > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for
> ourselves
> > so
> > > > > that
> > > > > > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those
> lines.
> > > > Months
> > > > > > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our
> > > > mailing
> > > > > > lists[5].
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread
> > unevenly
> > > > > > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
> > > > > > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together
> > into
> > > a
> > > > > > single coherent document. This document explains the history of
> the
> > > > > > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously
> unified
> > > or
> > > > > > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that
> > > background
> > > > > > context.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a
> > > > starting
> > > > > > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such
> > > > development
> > > > > > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document
> > > does
> > > > > not
> > > > > > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified -
> going
> > > to
> > > > > > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward
> compatibility
> > > > > seems
> > > > > > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode
> > to
> > > > TP4
> > > > > > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility
> forefront
> > > in
> > > > > our
> > > > > > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as
> possible.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
> > > > > > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list
> > > strips
> > > > > > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely
> > > > released
> > > > > > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are
> interested
> > in
> > > > > > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will
> share
> > > the
> > > > > PDF
> > > > > > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread
> > > > though.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
> > > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
> > > > > > [3]
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
> > > > > > [4]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
> > > > > > [5]
> > > > >
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > --
> > Divij Vaidya
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Keith Lohnes <lo...@gmail.com>.
Hey Stephen,
I'd be interested in taking a look at the doc.
-Keith
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:17 PM Divij Vaidya <di...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I would like to review the document as well please.
>
> Regards
> Divij
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:10 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > yes - reviews/comments are open to anyone interested. i will share it
> with
> > you - it's a PDF in google drive.
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:07 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd
> > enjoy a
> > > chance to see it as well.
> > >
> > > And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us that
> > > consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you
> takes
> > > in moving this technology forward.
> > >
> > > -Josh
> > >
> > > Josh Perryman
> > >
> > > Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
> > >
> > > 713.569.6533 <(713)%20569-6533> / @JoshPerryman <
> https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> /
> > LinkedIn
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
> > > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <
> spmallette@gmail.com
> > >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be.
> We've
> > > > > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1].
> We've
> > > > even
> > > > > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the
> basis
> > > for
> > > > > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's
> neat
> > > new
> > > > > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really
> > > promising.
> > > > > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the
> > thinking
> > > > for
> > > > > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
> > > > >
> > > > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes
> > in
> > > > the
> > > > > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they
> > are
> > > > > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled
> > > systems.
> > > > > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can
> feel
> > > > > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their
> best
> > > > > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in
> > > building
> > > > > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves
> so
> > > > that
> > > > > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines.
> > > Months
> > > > > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our
> > > mailing
> > > > > lists[5].
> > > > >
> > > > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread
> unevenly
> > > > > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
> > > > > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together
> into
> > a
> > > > > single coherent document. This document explains the history of the
> > > > > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified
> > or
> > > > > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that
> > background
> > > > > context.
> > > > >
> > > > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a
> > > starting
> > > > > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such
> > > development
> > > > > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document
> > does
> > > > not
> > > > > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going
> > to
> > > > > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility
> > > > seems
> > > > > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode
> to
> > > TP4
> > > > > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront
> > in
> > > > our
> > > > > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible.
> > > > >
> > > > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
> > > > > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list
> > strips
> > > > > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely
> > > released
> > > > > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested
> in
> > > > > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share
> > the
> > > > PDF
> > > > > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread
> > > though.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
> > > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
> > > > > [3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
> > > > > [4]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
> > > > > [5]
> > > >
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --
> Divij Vaidya
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Divij Vaidya <di...@gmail.com>.
I would like to review the document as well please.
Regards
Divij
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:10 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> yes - reviews/comments are open to anyone interested. i will share it with
> you - it's a PDF in google drive.
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:07 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com> wrote:
>
> > If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd
> enjoy a
> > chance to see it as well.
> >
> > And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us that
> > consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you takes
> > in moving this technology forward.
> >
> > -Josh
> >
> > Josh Perryman
> >
> > Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
> >
> > 713.569.6533 / @JoshPerryman <https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> /
> LinkedIn
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
> > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <spmallette@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be. We've
> > > > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1]. We've
> > > even
> > > > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the basis
> > for
> > > > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's neat
> > new
> > > > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really
> > promising.
> > > > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the
> thinking
> > > for
> > > > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
> > > >
> > > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes
> in
> > > the
> > > > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they
> are
> > > > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled
> > systems.
> > > > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can feel
> > > > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their best
> > > > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in
> > building
> > > > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves so
> > > that
> > > > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines.
> > Months
> > > > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our
> > mailing
> > > > lists[5].
> > > >
> > > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread unevenly
> > > > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
> > > > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together into
> a
> > > > single coherent document. This document explains the history of the
> > > > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified
> or
> > > > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that
> background
> > > > context.
> > > >
> > > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a
> > starting
> > > > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such
> > development
> > > > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document
> does
> > > not
> > > > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going
> to
> > > > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility
> > > seems
> > > > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode to
> > TP4
> > > > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront
> in
> > > our
> > > > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible.
> > > >
> > > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
> > > > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list
> strips
> > > > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely
> > released
> > > > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested in
> > > > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share
> the
> > > PDF
> > > > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread
> > though.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
> > > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
> > > > [3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
> > > > [4]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
> > > > [5]
> > > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
--
Divij Vaidya
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
yes - reviews/comments are open to anyone interested. i will share it with
you - it's a PDF in google drive.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 12:07 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com> wrote:
> If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd enjoy a
> chance to see it as well.
>
> And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us that
> consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you takes
> in moving this technology forward.
>
> -Josh
>
> Josh Perryman
>
> Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
>
> 713.569.6533 / @JoshPerryman <https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> / LinkedIn
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be. We've
> > > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1]. We've
> > even
> > > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the basis
> for
> > > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's neat
> new
> > > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really
> promising.
> > > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the thinking
> > for
> > > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
> > >
> > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes in
> > the
> > > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they are
> > > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled
> systems.
> > > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can feel
> > > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their best
> > > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in
> building
> > > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves so
> > that
> > > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines.
> Months
> > > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our
> mailing
> > > lists[5].
> > >
> > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread unevenly
> > > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
> > > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together into a
> > > single coherent document. This document explains the history of the
> > > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified or
> > > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that background
> > > context.
> > >
> > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a
> starting
> > > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such
> development
> > > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document does
> > not
> > > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going to
> > > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility
> > seems
> > > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode to
> TP4
> > > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront in
> > our
> > > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible.
> > >
> > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
> > > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list strips
> > > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely
> released
> > > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested in
> > > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share the
> > PDF
> > > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread
> though.
> > >
> > >
> > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
> > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
> > > [3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
> > > [4]
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
> > > [5]
> > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
> > >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Josh Perryman <jo...@experoinc.com>.
If comments are welcome from outside of the regular committers, I'd enjoy a
chance to see it as well.
And thanks for all of the work that each of you does. Those of us that
consume the results of your efforts appreciate the care each of you takes
in moving this technology forward.
-Josh
Josh Perryman
Data Junkie, Big Graph Guy
713.569.6533 / @JoshPerryman <https://twitter.com/JoshPerryman> / LinkedIn
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 9:29 AM Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be. We've
> > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1]. We've
> even
> > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the basis for
> > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's neat new
> > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really promising.
> > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the thinking
> for
> > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
> >
> > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes in
> the
> > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they are
> > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled systems.
> > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can feel
> > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their best
> > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in building
> > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves so
> that
> > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines. Months
> > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our mailing
> > lists[5].
> >
> > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread unevenly
> > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
> > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together into a
> > single coherent document. This document explains the history of the
> > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified or
> > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that background
> > context.
> >
> > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a starting
> > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such development
> > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document does
> not
> > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going to
> > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility
> seems
> > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode to TP4
> > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront in
> our
> > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible.
> >
> > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
> > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list strips
> > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely released
> > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested in
> > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share the
> PDF
> > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread though.
> >
> >
> > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
> > [3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
> > [4]
> >
> >
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
> > [5]
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] Apache TinkerPop 4 Vision
Posted by Jason Plurad <pl...@gmail.com>.
+1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen.
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be. We've
> migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1]. We've even
> introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the basis for
> TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's neat new
> work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really promising.
> There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the thinking for
> what TP4 should be about as well[3][4].
>
> Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes in the
> graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they are
> aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled systems.
> We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can feel
> confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their best
> interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in building
> their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves so that
> we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines. Months
> ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our mailing
> lists[5].
>
> The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread unevenly
> across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with
> collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together into a
> single coherent document. This document explains the history of the
> TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified or
> fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that background
> context.
>
> There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a starting
> date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such development
> would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document does not
> yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going to
> suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility seems
> achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode to TP4
> bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront in our
> minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible.
>
> At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be
> incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list strips
> attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely released
> yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested in
> reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share the PDF
> with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread though.
>
>
> [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/
> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942
> [3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture
> [4]
>
> https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine
> [5] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ
>