Good day, everyone, Thank you, Cole, for the summary. We are in complete agreement with the notes from our side. It was a really productive meeting. Following up on the discussion, I will focus on clarifying the Transaction API and finalizing the details of the match() specification.
I believe it would be beneficial to have these meetings on a (bi-)monthly basis to synchronize our views and maintain momentum as we actively contribute to TinkerPop. I envision a long period of collaboration and have a few more interesting, potentially revolutionary, ideas in store. However, I prefer to focus on those once the current proposals are implemented to ensure priorities and resources remain aligned. Best regards, Andrii Lomakin On Thu, Dec 11, 2025 at 1:11 AM Cole Greer <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks to everyone who was able to join the discussion. For those who > couldn't attend, this discussion primarily focused on priorities and > timelines for the various outstanding proposals on the devlist. I've > included below some notes on the discussions: > > Attendance: > - Cole Greer > - Yang Xia > - Lev Sivashov > - Andrea Child > - Ken Hu > - Andrii Lomakin > > Discussion Topics: > > - Match() overhaul (GQL integration) > - This is a high priority for YouTrackDB and they are invested in > building this capability and contributing it to TinkerPop. > > - TinkerPop 4 > - We discussed a rough goal of having TP4 completed in ~6 months time. > This will require dedicated discussions on the devlist to build consensus > on final scope and timelines for the release. > - Lots of work is still needed in gremlin-server for TP4, namely > transactions and a new provider extensibility model to replace OpProcessors. > > - Structure API > - Concerns were raised that usage of the structure api creates a > "lock-in" for embedded users as they cannot directly migrate their > application to remote graphs. > - It was also raised that the structure api is currently a critical tool > to enable users to write their own graph algorithms beyond what is easily > expressed in gremlin, without resulting in infinite extensions to gremlin > to cover every possible niche use case. > - Some interest was expressed in using WASM lambdas to replace this > current use-case for the structure api, which would allow users to write > similar code in their native language of choice, and have it be compiled to > WASM and executed remotely. This could be a tool to unify the embedded and > remote use cases, as well as the structure and process APIs. > - This is all a very long term vision beyond the scope of any immediate > work, and will require substantially more discussions and considerations > before any consensus is reached. > > We agreed it would be useful to meet again in the new year to continue > these discussions. A rough mid-January date was suggested to give some time > for ongoing proposals and implementations to progress. I will follow up > with a dedicated discussion to schedule this meeting, and potentially > organize a regular recurring event. > > Thanks, > Cole > > On 2025/12/05 22:05:30 Cole Greer wrote: > > I've created a microsoft teams meeting invite for Tuesday Dec. 9 at > 16:00 UTC. I've directly invited all folks active in this thread to the > meeting. Anyone else who is interested may join with this link: > https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_MjExNTRiOGYtYTA3ZC00Njk3LTgzMTAtNTU5NzAzYjI5YzRj%40thread.v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22f2267c2e-5a54-49f4-84fa-e4f2f4038a2e%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22f3bad5a5-c1a2-4172-b5ad-54f2ac72b2c8%22%7d > > > > Anyone is welcome to join, no account is necessary. > > > > Regards, > > Cole > > > > On 2025/12/05 17:48:37 Cole Greer wrote: > > > Hi Andrii, > > > > > > Tuesday at 08:00 PST/17:00 CET/16:00 UTC seems to work best for > everyone involved. I'll send a meeting invite that anyone who can join > shortly. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cole > > > > > > On 2025/12/05 09:31:39 Andrii Lomakin via dev wrote: > > > > Good day Cole, > > > > Can we make it at Tuesday, time you proposed ? > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 10:51 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I don't have a preference. All of those dates/times should work > for me. > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2025 at 12:32 PM Cole Greer <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > Apologies for my delay in scheduling this meeting. I believe a > time of > > > > > > 08:00 PST/17:00 CET/16:00 UTC is best for everyone who has > responded > > > > > here. > > > > > > I suggest scheduling the meeting this coming Friday, Monday, or > Tuesday > > > > > > (Dec. 5, 8, or 9). > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know of any preferences between these days, or if > an > > > > > > alternative date/time is needed. I will schedule an open meeting > once we > > > > > > have agreement on the date and time. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Cole > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2025/11/25 08:01:09 Andrii Lomakin via dev wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Andrii Lomakin > > > > YouTrackDB development lead > > > > > > > > > > -- Andrii Lomakin YouTrackDB development lead
