Created this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2061
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:49 PM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >> >> >> >>
