Some of you may have noticed this PR: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/693
It is for an object graph mapper. It is fairly large and, at a glance, a nicely developed body of work (docs, tests, javadoc, etc). As the author didn't bring this up on the dev list before issuing the PR, I'm unsure of their intentions, but I assume they would like gremlin-objects to be the standard OGM for TinkerPop. Without drilling too deeply, my immediate concerns with accepting this into the code base: 1. It promotes use of a method of development that seems in competition to the Traversal API rather than one that complements it. For example, it adds a new Query object and uses Structure API semantics. It also adds new interfaces for providers to implement if they want to support this feature. 2. I'm not clear on how well this approach would support remote traversals especially since we discourage Elements from being returned with properties. 3. The author admitted that this is a Java only solution. Given the size and complexity of this PR I'd be concerned about trying to implement it across languages. Our general design goal has been to keep GLVs simple. Recall again - elements in GLVs don't hold properties at all - it's not even an option. 4.I tend to see DSLs and OGMs linked a bit in terms of what they do. DSLs are new - just one version old. I'd like to seem them develop a bit longer and get some feedback on usage to see how they address users problems for writing Gremlin in their domains. 5. If we accept this, we are saying that this approach to OGM (and there have been a number of them, Ferma, Peapod, Frames, etc.) is the "right" way and as of right now I'm not sure I'm willing to get behind that. I tend to think there are many ways to OGM and that different people will like different ways - this is largely the reason why we tend not to focus our development in this area. I think I'd like to see gremlin-objects develop on its own for a while separately, build its own community following, and work out whatever rough edges it may have. TinkerPop would add it to the tool listing on the home page and promote it as an option for those looking for an OGM. We've had this recommendation before to other pull requests and project suggestions and I think it tends to work out well for all parties. For those reading this not familiar with our processes, this is just my opinion on how we should move forward. Others may not feel this way. Please feel free to share your thoughts. Thanks, Stephen
