I share all your concerns. I'd rather like to see it develop as a separate project.
Furthermore, I don't know the author, but his GitHub contribution activity information suggests that he's not going to maintain the code. Cheers, Daniel On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
