Re: [DISCUSS] Options for withRemote()

[Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>]

Robert Dale ended this thread with some interesting thoughts....bringing it
back to life with:

https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2078

On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 5:57 PM Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I liked RemoteGraph. It was fairly concise in what it was. It also kept
> things in line with other graphs, i.e. XGraph.open() (perhaps due to the
> fact that they all had their roots here).  EmptyGraph is kinda weird and
> verbose [EmptyGraph.instance().traversal().withRemote()]
>
> I don't like withRemote() on traversal.  It's weird. It let's me do weird
> things like TinkerGraph.open().traversal().withRemote().  Which graph am I
> talking to now? And then the behavior could completely change by pointing
> to other remotes. Will they all work in the same traversal? I don't know,
> more on this later!  In any case, it seems like the traversal should not
> need to know if it's local or remote.
>
> You want to call it ReferenceGraph because it has only reference elements.
> Yeah, fine. But I think if you're not going to break the API completely,
> then don't even bother breaking it a little. The API should be the same to
> get a traversal.  So, ReferenceGraph.open().traversal()
>
> Or as Marko once thought that there is no Graph but just connections (and
> mentioned ReferenceGraph) [1,2]. A local 'graph' is a LocalConnection.  But
> where does the traversal come from, the connection or is it submitted to
> the connection?
>
> Where I was going was something more like g = Traversal.with(Graph);  or,
> Traversal.with(Connection);  g.V();
>
> If we do the car analogy, the traversal is the directions (how to get from
> a to b), the graph is roads (and the traverser is the car but you can't see
> it, I guess this makes it an invisible car analogy).  So it seems like a
> traversal could be standalone, something that could be built even without a
> graph: g = Traversal.V();  Then I want to apply my directions using some
> road.  g.with(Graph).next();  The point is that I should be able to swap
> out what or where my Graph is without changing the traversal.
>
> This is later.. what if you could mix graphs with with().
>
>  Traversal.with(graphA).V().as('a').with(graphB).V().where(eq('a')).by('name').
> Cross-graphination!
>
> 1. https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/bran4kjn5IM/uy0RiBxSAgAJ
> 2.
>
> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/b4d80072ad36849b4e9cd3308f87115660574e3e7a4abb7ee68e959b@%3Cdev.tinkerpop.apache.org%3E
>
>
> Robert Dale
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:59 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I was hoping to have a nicer solution than EmptyGraph in 3.4.0 which
> might
> > mean some change in 3.2.x/3.3.x depending on what that was.....
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 15, 2018 at 8:28 AM Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Are you thinking of another mid-stream change or something for
> TinkerPop
> > > 3.4 or 4.0?
> > >
> > > Robert Dale
> > >
> > >
> > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 6:35 PM Stephen Mallette <spmallette@gmail.com
> >
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yes - I did consider killing instantiation through a Graph except
> that:
> > > >
> > > > 1. It felt like a major major departure from what we have been doing
> > and
> > > if
> > > > users have been using things like GraphFactory to instantiate graphs
> > then
> > > > they might continue to expect that support (currently supported by
> > > > RemoteGraph)
> > > > 2. Given 1 above, the test suite is one of those things that relies
> on
> > > > that...........
> > > > 3. Didn't really think of a suitable API that I loved to suggest
> > dealing
> > > > with the fallout of 1 and 2, but perhaps I didn't try hard enough.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 5:05 PM Robert Dale <ro...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why does it have to be a graph at all?  Maybe getting a traversal
> > from
> > > a
> > > > > graph is the wrong concept and that's why it perplexes you so.
> We're
> > > > > connecting to a server that can contain one or more graphs.  The
> > > > traversal
> > > > > should probably come off the connection or be standalone. Maybe the
> > > > > traversal takes a graph.
> > > > >
> > > > > Robert Dale
> > > > >
> > > > > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:01 PM Stephen Mallette <
> > spmallette@gmail.com
> > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > I've never been quite settled on how to connect to remote graphs.
> > > For a
> > > > > > while we had RemoteGraph but that wasn't useful really because it
> > was
> > > > > > largely non-functional, as you really just needed a remote
> > configured
> > > > > > TraversalSource - so we deprecated that.
> > TraversalSource.withRemote()
> > > > is
> > > > > > fine, but you can't get to it without a Graph implementation to
> > > create
> > > > > the
> > > > > > TraversalSource in the first place. For that we started to use
> > > > > EmptyGraph,
> > > > > > which works, but is a bit confusing, but less confusing than
> using
> > > say,
> > > > > > TinkerGraph, JanusGraph, etc.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So, how do we nicely create a TraversalSource, that is meant to
> > call
> > > > > > withRemote()?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We could create a new Graph implementation that's like
> EmptyGraph,
> > > > called
> > > > > > ReferenceGraph, which would behave in the same fashion, but at
> > least
> > > it
> > > > > > sorta fits because remoting only returns "Reference" elements. I
> > > > suppose
> > > > > > ReferenceGraph is somewhere in between EmptyGraph and RemoteGraph
> > in
> > > > > terms
> > > > > > of functionality so maybe it makes more sense usability wise than
> > the
> > > > > > extremes of the other two? I wonder if ReferenceGraph is even a
> > Graph
> > > > > > instance?? maybe it just has a single static method like:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > g = ReferenceGraph.traversal(conf)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > where traversal() constructs a GraphTraversalSource and proxies
> > calls
> > > > to
> > > > > > withRemote()? Not sure what happens to DSLs though...that might
> be
> > > > > trouble.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, it's a DISCUSS - so let's discuss.............
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>