Cole-Greer commented on PR #2599: URL: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/2599#issuecomment-2118255079
Hi @tien, thanks for putting this together. I agree with Florian that for this type of change, it is best to start with a JIRA or dev list post before starting implementation. I do think that consistency between the GLV's is important, but I can also see how this could be a valuable convenience for users. I do think if we are to add this for vertices in JS, we need to do the equivalent for edges. In terms of naming, an alternative worth considering might be `flattenVertex` but this isn't something I feel strongly about. The overall implementation looks good to me, although I wonder if the need to provide explicit cardinality schemas for anything other than singles will limit the convenience upside here. It would be cool if there was an option to try and detect the cardinality of each property, and only force a conversion if the user explicitly specifies an override. Granted this would currently be limited to just single and list, as set is currently blocked by [TINKERPOP-3011](https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-3011) In general, if this is something that JS users want in the GLV, then I'm willing to put aside some of the cross-GLV consistency concerns here. I think it's worth a quick dev list thread just to ensure the design is aligned with the community. -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
