You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@tinkerpop.apache.org by br...@gmail.com,
br...@gmail.com on 2018/10/08 13:56:31 UTC
OptionsStrategy improvements
Hi,
I recently saw the new OptionsStrategy feature added in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2053, and was wondering it it would be possible to add dedicated support for this at the traversal level.
Using a strategy is fine, and I can see that it fits well with the existing infrastructure. However from the user point of view it is extremely verbose:
g.withStrategies(OptionsStrategy.build().with("specialLimit", 10000).withOption("specialLimit2", 1000).create()).V();
vs something like:
g.with("specialLimit", 10000).with("specialLimit2", 1000).V()
Would it be possible to introduce something like the above syntax to implicitly add and configure the OptionsStrategy?
I think it would make this new feature much more compelling. I can see lots of uses for supplying traversal level options going forward.
Many thanks,
Bryn
Re: OptionsStrategy improvements
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
Created this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2061
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:49 PM Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> yes - what we have now is verbose. i did consider a shorthand like you
> suggested, but opted against it initially because i didn't want to
> introduce new first class citizenry to the GraphTraversalSource. Of course,
> at the time i didn't realize that we would be handling this with a strategy
> as the vehicle for implementation. g.with() is a bit more compelling to me
> knowing that it's just shorthand for a withStrategies(OptionStrategy) call.
> I guess we should use with() rather than withOption() which would make it
> analogous to the with() modulator on GraphTraversal.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:56 AM bryncooke@gmail.com <br...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I recently saw the new OptionsStrategy feature added in
>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2053, and was wondering
>> it it would be possible to add dedicated support for this at the traversal
>> level.
>>
>> Using a strategy is fine, and I can see that it fits well with the
>> existing infrastructure. However from the user point of view it is
>> extremely verbose:
>>
>> g.withStrategies(OptionsStrategy.build().with("specialLimit",
>> 10000).withOption("specialLimit2", 1000).create()).V();
>>
>> vs something like:
>>
>> g.with("specialLimit", 10000).with("specialLimit2", 1000).V()
>>
>> Would it be possible to introduce something like the above syntax to
>> implicitly add and configure the OptionsStrategy?
>>
>> I think it would make this new feature much more compelling. I can see
>> lots of uses for supplying traversal level options going forward.
>>
>> Many thanks,
>>
>> Bryn
>>
>>
>>
>>
Re: OptionsStrategy improvements
Posted by Stephen Mallette <sp...@gmail.com>.
yes - what we have now is verbose. i did consider a shorthand like you
suggested, but opted against it initially because i didn't want to
introduce new first class citizenry to the GraphTraversalSource. Of course,
at the time i didn't realize that we would be handling this with a strategy
as the vehicle for implementation. g.with() is a bit more compelling to me
knowing that it's just shorthand for a withStrategies(OptionStrategy) call.
I guess we should use with() rather than withOption() which would make it
analogous to the with() modulator on GraphTraversal.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:56 AM bryncooke@gmail.com <br...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I recently saw the new OptionsStrategy feature added in
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2053, and was wondering
> it it would be possible to add dedicated support for this at the traversal
> level.
>
> Using a strategy is fine, and I can see that it fits well with the
> existing infrastructure. However from the user point of view it is
> extremely verbose:
>
> g.withStrategies(OptionsStrategy.build().with("specialLimit",
> 10000).withOption("specialLimit2", 1000).create()).V();
>
> vs something like:
>
> g.with("specialLimit", 10000).with("specialLimit2", 1000).V()
>
> Would it be possible to introduce something like the above syntax to
> implicitly add and configure the OptionsStrategy?
>
> I think it would make this new feature much more compelling. I can see
> lots of uses for supplying traversal level options going forward.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Bryn
>
>
>
>