+ Lev Sivashov upon his request. On Fri, 21 Nov 2025, 09:18 Andrii Lomakin, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Good day. > > Thank you for such proposal and openness to discussion. > > We have 9 hours difference in timezones. > Unfortunately it will be hard to find time that will be OK for all of us > and all participants can be included. > > I propose to fallback to Discord thread as an option. > > We tried to participate in TinkerPop gatherings but that is quite later > evening for us so it attempt failed. > > That is why BTW we use Zulip in YTDB as it optimized for cases when all > participants have quite different timezones but as not everyone has Zulip > but everyone has Discord I suggest to fallback to it's thread. > > > On Fri, 21 Nov 2025, 00:20 Andrea Child via dev, <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I am also interested. >> >> From: Cole Greer <[email protected]> >> Date: Thursday, November 20, 2025 at 3:02 PM >> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: Proposal of providing remote traversal using JDBC way. >> >> I'd be interested in joining such a discussion. >> >> On 2025/11/20 19:39:58 Ken Hu wrote: >> > 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. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
