I've reverted to Groovy 2.5.x and the 3.0 issue is reopened: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2373
We're back to being fast on master. Going to generate docs for the first time in months. Hopefully it won't be too big a mess. I will post back here when I've got a new 3.5.0-SNAPSHOT published. On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 7:06 PM Josh Perryman <[email protected]> wrote: > As an interested observer, I think your concerns regarding Groovy are > valid. All of your considerations look entirely reasonable. Perhaps move it > to "risk" as suggested, and note it in the next board report. Maybe the > Apache board has some pull in this situation? > > Reducing dependency on Groovy doesn't add a whole lot of value, but not > being able to build the documentation is a definite problem. > > It's a shame. I rather like Groovy, though my actual professional use of it > has been limited. > > -Josh > > On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 6:17 AM Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Given the performance problems with Groovy 3.0 that I've detailed in this > > thread: > > > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rbd7b09e53f7a0e421057192ed564907755252b8bd43085ecb16f98e4%40%3Cdev.tinkerpop.apache.org%3E > > > > and further documented in this issue: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2526 > > > > and compounded by what I can only describe as unprecedented disinterest > in > > the problem by the Groovy Community, I think it wise that we revert 3.0 > and > > go back to 2.x. Thankfully, I think it was just this commit: > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/commit/cc3c5cb83e253b9949076628a7cfaade7f86f40e > > > > I will then reopen the Groovy 3.0 issue: > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-2373 > > > > and link it to the performance blocker with TINKERPOP-2526. > > > > If there are no objections in the next 72 hours, I'll assume lazy > consensus > > and push on in this direction. > > > > I'm a bit shocked by the lack of feedback I've gotten on this issue from > > Groovy to be honest. Just silence. It's understandable in that it is > > perhaps a difficult/complex problem to get into but it's been months now > > and without at least some direction and communication with Groovy project > > members I could spend weeks developing a fix that may not even be > > acceptable to be integrated into their code base. > > > > I don't want to read too much into this situation but it highlights our > > continued dependence on Groovy despite our attempts to get better > > separation as we went to TinkerPop 3. I'm starting to feel concerned that > > this dependence is shifting further to "risk". I don't think we need to > > make any immediate decisions, but with the expected move to processing > > Gremlin with antlr (i.e. gremlin-script)[1] it might be time to try to > cut > > the cord further. Perhaps we switch to JShell for the Gremlin Console or > > develop our own repl around gremlin-script?? Maybe we also deprecate > Groovy > > as a ScriptEngine in Gremlin Server and only host gremlin-script?? I > > suppose that all of this is ideas for a different thread and for a > > different day. > > > > [1] > > > > > https://lists.apache.org/thread.html/rc9288877898d583b3307eebf09949d5887081da38186dd82e59077ae%40%3Cdev.tinkerpop.apache.org%3E > > >
