yeah - the "fragility" was something i'd hoped to see addressed. the PR has a long way to go to be something that could be really merged i think. Note that groovysh does have:
http://cndoc.github.io/groovy-doc-cn/en/groovysh.html#GroovyShell-doc so they already have something like this. it just opens a browser though which isn't as nice as what was done in the PR. anyway, i think that "doc" function in groovysh is what should be improved and not just have something competing feature here in TinkerPop. On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Daniel Kuppitz <[email protected]> wrote: > That's unfortunate, I liked the idea. However, most of the code was written > to scrape content from web pages - that's a pretty fragile approach. That > said, it looks like we wouldn't lose a lot if we drop it. Thus, no > objections from my side. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 10:56 PM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > We have this old PR that's just been hanging about: > > > > https://github.com/apache/incubator-tinkerpop/pull/71 > > > > It's about a year old and probably won't merge anymore. The PR submitter > > could never quite come back to it to act on the feedback we provided. It > > was a nice idea and a good feature, but it was very rough. I've been of > the > > opinion to leave it open, thinking someone might pick up on the work, but > > now i'm not so sure it's worth waiting anymore and we should just nudge > > this in the direction of closing it, especially if the submitter doesn't > > intend to work on it. > > > > My reasoning is pretty simple - this feature really shouldn't be a > > TinkerPop feature. It should be a feature of groovysh and should be a PR > to > > Apache Groovy and not to us. If it went to Groovy, it would > > be generally more useful to the whole Groovy community and would likely > get > > better maintenance and we would just inherit that. > > > > Anyone feel differently on that? > > >
