You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tinkerpop.apache.org by Kelvin Lawrence <gf...@me.com.INVALID> on 2020/09/01 14:13:47 UTC
Re: [DISCUSS] withEmbedded()
I think this makes good sense and improves the naming consistency.
Cheers,
Kelvin
On 2020/08/29 13:28:12, Stephen Mallette <s....@gmail.com> wrote:
> In 3.3.5 we introduced a more unified method to construct "g":>
>
> gremlin> g = traversal().withGraph(TinkerFactory.createModern())>
> ==>graphtraversalsource[tinkergraph[vertices:6 edges:6], standard]>
> gremlin> g = traversal().withRemote('conf/remote-graph.properties')>
> ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> gremlin> g =>
> traversal().withRemote(DriverRemoteConnection.using('localhost',8182))>
> ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
>
> https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.8/upgrade/#_anonymoustraversalsource>
>
> I think that approach has been really helpful. Of course, this morning I>
> was thinking that withGraph(Graph) could be better named if we changed it>
> to withEmbedded(Graph) which would then make it explicit that there are two>
> modes of operation at play here in TinkerPop when you go to write your>
> Gremlin with "g".>
>
> You can (1) have a "embedded" graph for which you must have a local>
> instance available or (2) a "remote" graph for which you need a connection.>
>
> I was thinking we could deprecate withGraph() for withEmbedded() in 3.4.9>
> and drop withGraph() in 3.5.0. Anyone have any thoughts on that matter?>
>
Cheers,
Kelvin
Kelvin R. Lawrence
Round Rock, Texas, U.S.A.
http://www.kelvinlawrence.net
Re: [DISCUSS] withEmbedded()
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
Here's the PR for withEmbedded(Graph)
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/1322
I opted to leave this method out of GLVs since there is no real "embedded
graph" to provide there. So, a bit inconsistent, but it seems better than
creating the idea that it's possible to do embedded connections with GLVs
off the JVM.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:22 AM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> It's interesting - we never actually went forward promoting withGraph() at
> all. I seem to recall that we might have expected to promote it in full in
> 3.5.0, but we've been delayed a bit in that version's development so it's
> been forgotten. :/ Personally, i don't see a problem with changing the
> documentation for 3.4.9 to promote withEmbedded(). No code will break as
> both withGraph() and Graph.traversal() will still be around.
>
> On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:37 AM Jorge Bay Gondra <jo...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I think naming it withEmbedded() can help users understand the difference
>> between the two modes (I remember it took me a while to grasp it).
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kelvin Lawrence <gf...@me.com.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > I think this makes good sense and improves the naming consistency.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Kelvin
>> >
>> > On 2020/08/29 13:28:12, Stephen Mallette <s....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > In 3.3.5 we introduced a more unified method to construct "g":>
>> > >
>> > > gremlin> g = traversal().withGraph(TinkerFactory.createModern())>
>> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[tinkergraph[vertices:6 edges:6], standard]>
>> > > gremlin> g = traversal().withRemote('conf/remote-graph.properties')>
>> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
>> > > gremlin> g =>
>> > >
>> traversal().withRemote(DriverRemoteConnection.using('localhost',8182))>
>> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.8/upgrade/#_anonymoustraversalsource
>> >
>> >
>> > >
>> > > I think that approach has been really helpful. Of course, this morning
>> > I>
>> > > was thinking that withGraph(Graph) could be better named if we changed
>> > it>
>> > > to withEmbedded(Graph) which would then make it explicit that there
>> are
>> > two>
>> > > modes of operation at play here in TinkerPop when you go to write
>> your>
>> > > Gremlin with "g".>
>> > >
>> > > You can (1) have a "embedded" graph for which you must have a local>
>> > > instance available or (2) a "remote" graph for which you need a
>> > connection.>
>> > >
>> > > I was thinking we could deprecate withGraph() for withEmbedded() in
>> > 3.4.9>
>> > > and drop withGraph() in 3.5.0. Anyone have any thoughts on that
>> matter?>
>> > >
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Kelvin
>> >
>> > Kelvin R. Lawrence
>> > Round Rock, Texas, U.S.A.
>> > http://www.kelvinlawrence.net
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
Re: [DISCUSS] withEmbedded()
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
It's interesting - we never actually went forward promoting withGraph() at
all. I seem to recall that we might have expected to promote it in full in
3.5.0, but we've been delayed a bit in that version's development so it's
been forgotten. :/ Personally, i don't see a problem with changing the
documentation for 3.4.9 to promote withEmbedded(). No code will break as
both withGraph() and Graph.traversal() will still be around.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:37 AM Jorge Bay Gondra <jo...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think naming it withEmbedded() can help users understand the difference
> between the two modes (I remember it took me a while to grasp it).
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kelvin Lawrence <gf...@me.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I think this makes good sense and improves the naming consistency.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kelvin
> >
> > On 2020/08/29 13:28:12, Stephen Mallette <s....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In 3.3.5 we introduced a more unified method to construct "g":>
> > >
> > > gremlin> g = traversal().withGraph(TinkerFactory.createModern())>
> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[tinkergraph[vertices:6 edges:6], standard]>
> > > gremlin> g = traversal().withRemote('conf/remote-graph.properties')>
> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> > > gremlin> g =>
> > > traversal().withRemote(DriverRemoteConnection.using('localhost',8182))>
> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.8/upgrade/#_anonymoustraversalsource
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think that approach has been really helpful. Of course, this morning
> > I>
> > > was thinking that withGraph(Graph) could be better named if we changed
> > it>
> > > to withEmbedded(Graph) which would then make it explicit that there are
> > two>
> > > modes of operation at play here in TinkerPop when you go to write your>
> > > Gremlin with "g".>
> > >
> > > You can (1) have a "embedded" graph for which you must have a local>
> > > instance available or (2) a "remote" graph for which you need a
> > connection.>
> > >
> > > I was thinking we could deprecate withGraph() for withEmbedded() in
> > 3.4.9>
> > > and drop withGraph() in 3.5.0. Anyone have any thoughts on that
> matter?>
> > >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kelvin
> >
> > Kelvin R. Lawrence
> > Round Rock, Texas, U.S.A.
> > http://www.kelvinlawrence.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
Re: [DISCUSS] withEmbedded()
Posted by Jorge Bay Gondra <jo...@gmail.com>.
I think naming it withEmbedded() can help users understand the difference
between the two modes (I remember it took me a while to grasp it).
On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kelvin Lawrence <gf...@me.com.invalid>
wrote:
> I think this makes good sense and improves the naming consistency.
>
> Cheers,
> Kelvin
>
> On 2020/08/29 13:28:12, Stephen Mallette <s....@gmail.com> wrote:
> > In 3.3.5 we introduced a more unified method to construct "g":>
> >
> > gremlin> g = traversal().withGraph(TinkerFactory.createModern())>
> > ==>graphtraversalsource[tinkergraph[vertices:6 edges:6], standard]>
> > gremlin> g = traversal().withRemote('conf/remote-graph.properties')>
> > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> > gremlin> g =>
> > traversal().withRemote(DriverRemoteConnection.using('localhost',8182))>
> > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> >
> >
> https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.8/upgrade/#_anonymoustraversalsource>
>
> >
> > I think that approach has been really helpful. Of course, this morning
> I>
> > was thinking that withGraph(Graph) could be better named if we changed
> it>
> > to withEmbedded(Graph) which would then make it explicit that there are
> two>
> > modes of operation at play here in TinkerPop when you go to write your>
> > Gremlin with "g".>
> >
> > You can (1) have a "embedded" graph for which you must have a local>
> > instance available or (2) a "remote" graph for which you need a
> connection.>
> >
> > I was thinking we could deprecate withGraph() for withEmbedded() in
> 3.4.9>
> > and drop withGraph() in 3.5.0. Anyone have any thoughts on that matter?>
> >
>
> Cheers,
> Kelvin
>
> Kelvin R. Lawrence
> Round Rock, Texas, U.S.A.
> http://www.kelvinlawrence.net
>
>
>
>