Re: [DISCUSS] Revert to Groovy 2.x for 3.5.0

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

Docs are publishing now for 3.5.0 after the revert:

https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.5.0-SNAPSHOT/reference/


On Fri, Feb 26, 2021 at 8:17 PM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I've reverted to Groovy 2.5.x and the 3.0 issue is reopened:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2373
>
> We're back to being fast on master. Going to generate docs for the first
> time in months. Hopefully it won't be too big a mess. I will post back here
> when I've got a new 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT published.
>
> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 7:06 PM Josh Perryman <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> As an interested observer, I think your concerns regarding Groovy are
>> valid. All of your considerations look entirely reasonable. Perhaps move
>> it
>> to "risk" as suggested, and note it in the next board report. Maybe the
>> Apache board has some pull in this situation?
>>
>> Reducing dependency on Groovy doesn't add a whole lot of value, but not
>> being able to build the documentation is a definite problem.
>>
>> It's a shame. I rather like Groovy, though my actual professional use of
>> it
>> has been limited.
>>
>> -Josh
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 6:17 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Given the performance problems with Groovy 3.0 that I've detailed in
>> this
>> > thread:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7b09e53f7a0e421057192ed564907755252b8bd43085ecb16f98e4%40%3Cdev.tinkerpop.apache.org%3E
>> >
>> > and further documented in this issue:
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2526
>> >
>> > and compounded by what I can only describe as unprecedented disinterest
>> in
>> > the problem by the Groovy Community, I think it wise that we revert 3.0
>> and
>> > go back to 2.x. Thankfully, I think it was just this commit:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/commit/cc3c5cb83e253b9949076628a7cfaade7f86f40e
>> >
>> > I will then reopen the Groovy 3.0 issue:
>> >
>> > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2373
>> >
>> > and link it to the performance blocker with TINKERPOP-2526.
>> >
>> > If there are no objections in the next 72 hours, I'll assume lazy
>> consensus
>> > and push on in this direction.
>> >
>> > I'm a bit shocked by the lack of feedback I've gotten on this issue from
>> > Groovy to be honest. Just silence. It's understandable in that it is
>> > perhaps a difficult/complex problem to get into but it's been months now
>> > and without at least some direction and communication with Groovy
>> project
>> > members I could spend weeks developing a fix that may not even be
>> > acceptable to be integrated into their code base.
>> >
>> > I don't want to read too much into this situation but it highlights our
>> > continued dependence on Groovy despite our attempts to get better
>> > separation as we went to TinkerPop 3. I'm starting to feel concerned
>> that
>> > this dependence is shifting further to "risk". I don't think we need to
>> > make any immediate decisions, but with the expected move to processing
>> > Gremlin with antlr (i.e. gremlin-script)[1] it might be time to try to
>> cut
>> > the cord further. Perhaps we switch to JShell for the Gremlin Console or
>> > develop our own repl around gremlin-script?? Maybe we also deprecate
>> Groovy
>> > as a ScriptEngine in Gremlin Server and only host gremlin-script?? I
>> > suppose that all of this is ideas for a different thread and for a
>> > different day.
>> >
>> > [1]
>> >
>> >
>> https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc9288877898d583b3307eebf09949d5887081da38186dd82e59077ae%40%3Cdev.tinkerpop.apache.org%3E
>> >
>>
>