yes - what we have now is verbose. i did consider a shorthand like you suggested, but opted against it initially because i didn't want to introduce new first class citizenry to the GraphTraversalSource. Of course, at the time i didn't realize that we would be handling this with a strategy as the vehicle for implementation. g.with() is a bit more compelling to me knowing that it's just shorthand for a withStrategies(OptionStrategy) call. I guess we should use with() rather than withOption() which would make it analogous to the with() modulator on GraphTraversal.
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 9:56 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > I recently saw the new OptionsStrategy feature added in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2053, and was wondering > it it would be possible to add dedicated support for this at the traversal > level. > > Using a strategy is fine, and I can see that it fits well with the > existing infrastructure. However from the user point of view it is > extremely verbose: > > g.withStrategies(OptionsStrategy.build().with("specialLimit", > 10000).withOption("specialLimit2", 1000).create()).V(); > > vs something like: > > g.with("specialLimit", 10000).with("specialLimit2", 1000).V() > > Would it be possible to introduce something like the above syntax to > implicitly add and configure the OptionsStrategy? > > I think it would make this new feature much more compelling. I can see > lots of uses for supplying traversal level options going forward. > > Many thanks, > > Bryn > > > >
