Sorry, my bad, lost in time zones: It is 12:00 AM to 10:00 AM in PT. On Tue, Nov 25, 2025 at 8:58 AM Andrii Lomakin <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi, > > My preferred times are 09:00 to 19:00 CET (08:00 to 18:00 UTC), which is > 12:00 AM to 1:00 PM PT. > Please note that my availability highly depends on the specific day, as my > schedule is often fully booked with other meetings. > > Lev and Vladislav, please add your preferred times as well. > > Thanks, > Andrii Lomakin > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2025 at 5:14 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Let's try to use an option that doesn't require an account (e.g. Zoom, >> Microsoft Teams, Google Meet). Cole, as a member of the PMC, do you mind >> creating/managing the meeting for this open discussion? My preferred times >> are anything between 8AM-8PM PT (16:00-04:00 UTC), but I have some >> flexibility and can extend beyond those hours. What time works best for >> everyone else? >> >> On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 5:34 AM Andrii Lomakin via dev < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >> > +Vladislav Grinin <[email protected]> upon his request. >> > >> > Vladislav is working on TinkerPop LDBC benchmarks that we plan to >> release >> > in the near future. >> > >> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:40 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> 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. >> > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >
