What does this mean if someone tries to send a remote Traversal from a GLV? I'm guessing that is what makes "1. Providing DSL that does the same call" necessary. I think that scripts and traversals need to have the same capabilities "out of the box" when using the GLVs. So while I think this is a good idea, I would also like to see a proposal on what can be done for remote Traversals.
On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 9:47 AM Andrea Child <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrii, > > I like your idea as it would improve readability of traversals to be able > to reference the service directly in the grammar instead of via the call > step. Looking forward to the contribution! > > Andrea > > From: Andrii Lomakin <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, November 5, 2025 at 8:15 AM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Subject: Proposal: Intorduction of equalence between call(serviceName, > args:List) and method call in scripts > > Good day, colleagues. > > I would like to propose an approach to enhancing the extensibility of the > Gremlin script, which, although it does not solve all problems, will make > many Gremlin extensions feel native. > The Idea, as you may have already guessed from the title, is simple: if a > service is registered in TinkerPop to treat it as a method call with > parameters, such as args: List<Object> as an argument. > > So call like: g.schemClass("User") will be translated to > g.call("schemaClass", "args" : ["User]) > > In such a case, providers will extend Gremlin twofold: > 1. Providing DSL that does the same call. > 2. Registering related service. > > If you agree with this proposal, I would be glad to contribute it, as I > mentioned, it does not solve all issues, such as the usage of custom > predicates, but I am under the impression that it can be extended to that > case too in the future. >
