In TinkerPop 4.x, we're going to have more options since the server is likely to host more endpoints (e.g. status). This opens up new possibilities with how the GLVs can interact with the server and in particular with different providers/vendors. I think we should have an open discussion on these topics that you have brought up on the dev list recently. Maybe we can schedule an open meeting for the first week of Dec (to avoid the Thanksgiving holiday)?
If anyone is interested in discussing some of these items then please reply to this thread. We can decide on a time that works for everyone in several days after anyone that is interested gets a chance to say so. On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:05 AM Andrii Lomakin <[email protected]> wrote: > Good day. > Let me provide one more argument. > > Not so long I read the book 'differentiate or die' that is important point > for vendors as with tool that promotes unification by default they can't > differentiate themselves so efficiently and prefer tools that promotes > differentiation. > > I think that is valuable point. > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, 14:53 Andrii Lomakin, <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Good day. > > I understand that it contradicts current 4.x goal. > > > > To decide I propose to check how many vendors can practically work > without > > their dependencies added , I also propose to take into account impact of > > each vendor on infrastructure. I have a feeling that feature rich vendors > > can't work without their dependencies added. > > > > > > As one more argument JDBC users work in this way all the time and don't > > see any issues with this approach. > > > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2025, 19:49 Andrii Lomakin, <[email protected] > > > > wrote: > > > >> Good day, > >> > >> As Ken Hu correctly noted in a separate thread, the fact that users > >> sometimes ignore vendor libraries is leading to confusion. > >> > >> I propose changing how users obtain a RemoteGraphTraversal instance. > >> Instead of allowing direct creation of the instance, I suggest using a > >> method similar to RemoteGraphTraversalManager.connect(url, name, > password). > >> This new approach would enforce registration of the provider library by > >> throwing an exception if it is missing. > >> > >> I recognize that this proposal may be controversial, but I believe it is > >> worth considering as a solution to the long-lasting issue. > >> > >> Looking forward to reading your opinions. > >> YouTrackDB development lead, > >> Andrii Lomakin. > >> > > >
