[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1752?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16181064#comment-16181064
 ] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1752:
-------------------------------------------

Github user jorgebay commented on a diff in the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/712#discussion_r141109744
  
    --- Diff: gremlin-dotnet/src/Gremlin.Net/Process/Traversal/Bytecode.cs ---
    @@ -79,7 +85,77 @@ public void AddSource(string sourceName, params object[] 
args)
             /// <param name="args">The traversal method arguments.</param>
             public void AddStep(string stepName, params object[] args)
             {
    -            StepInstructions.Add(new Instruction(stepName, args));
    +            StepInstructions.Add(new Instruction(stepName, 
FlattenArguments(args)));
    +            Bindings.Clear();
    --- End diff --
    
    I agree that a solution could be an overkill on the API...
    
    I'm +1 from not supporting bindings in the .NET GLV (and document it), I 
don't see much purpose.
    
    What do you think about not supporting Bindings on the .NET GLV @okram 
@spmallette @robertdale ?


> Gremlin.Net: Generate completely type-safe methods
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TINKERPOP-1752
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1752
>             Project: TinkerPop
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: dotnet
>    Affects Versions: 3.2.5
>            Reporter: Florian Hockmann
>            Priority: Minor
>
> Currently the generated traversal methods in Gremlin.Net take {{params 
> object[] args}} as an argument which allows the user to provide an arbitrary 
> number of arguments with any type. While this makes the generation rather 
> simple, it doesn't tell the user which arguments are actually valid so users 
> can submit completely invalid traversals like:
> {code}
> g.V(1).AddE(1234, "invalidArgument2").Next()
> {code}
> Type-safe methods could also use the original argument names to tell users 
> something about what kind of values the methods expect. Consider for example 
> the following method signatures for the C# step {{AddE}} that are basically a 
> 1:1 representation of the original Java {{addE}} step:
> {code}
> public GraphTraversal< S , Edge > AddE (Direction direction, string 
> firstVertexKeyOrEdgeLabel, string edgeLabelOrSecondVertexKey, params object[] 
> propertyKeyValues);
> public GraphTraversal< S , Edge > AddE (string edgeLabel);
> {code}
> Implementing this should make TINKERPOP-1725 obsolete and also resolve 
> TINKERPOP-1751.



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.4.14#64029)

Reply via email to