Hi everyone, Here's the summary notes for the Jan 29 discussions. Thanks for joining us!
Attendance: - Pieter Martin - Joshua Shinavier - Yang Xia - Ken Hu Summary: The meeting focused on transaction API design for TinkerPop 4, specifically discussing a proposal to move transactions to GraphTraversalSource to simplify remote transaction handling. During the discussion, various related topics emerged including latency challenges with remote graphs, the role of TinkerPop as a language framework, and meta-model and schema language needs. Transaction API Design and Related Discussion: A proposal was discussed for remote transactions: moving tx to GraphTraversalSource so that g.tx().begin() starts the transaction on the thread rather than returning another GraphTraversalSource. This would require creating multiple GraphTraversalSource instances (using traversal().with(DriverRemoteConnection)) for concurrent transactions instead of reusing "g". Concerns were raised about larger interface changes that would break users. The conversation touched on latency challenges when graphs sit over remote connections (unlike TinkerGraph which is embedded with no latency). Remote implementations, like Janus Graph, face latency problems requiring step replacement. This led to discussion about TinkerPop potentially positioning itself more as a language framework rather than a protocol implementation, allowing implementers to provide their own remote protocols. The focus could shift to grammar and a well-structured meta-model rather than the Java reference implementation, reducing the importance of step implementations and using grammar to define what constitutes a TinkerGraph. Meta-Model and Schema Language: Questions were raised about validation constraints for defining a valid graph. TinkerPop has an implicit notion of vertex, edge, and properties, with simplicity as its strength, but lacks a formal schema language. The need for a well-articulated meta-model and formal description was emphasized. A dedicated meeting on this topic will be organized by Josh and open to community members interested in the subject. Please feel free to add anything I might have missed. Thanks, Yang On 2026/01/27 19:55:58 Cole Greer wrote: > Hi everyone, > > I've moved the meeting to Thursdays at 17:00 UTC as this appears to best > accommodate all parties. > > Thanks, > Cole > > On 2026/01/24 07:37:51 pieter wrote: > > Hi, > > > > 17:00 UTC is fine with me. > > > > Thanks > > Pieter > > > > On Fri, 2026-01-16 at 23:07 +0000, Cole Greer wrote: > > > Pulling this reply from Josh into the thread: > > > > > > > Hi Cole, > > > > > > > > I am interested in attending the next one, although 8am PST is > > > > always going to be tricky for me; that's exactly when I am busiest > > > > getting my kids off to school. Any possibility of 10am PST? I > > > > realize that this would be evening in Europe. 9am PST would also > > > > work (I would just be a few minutes late). > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Josh > > > > > > Hi Josh, > > > > > > It would be great if you could join as well. I'll leave the > > > scheduling question open for a few days for others to weigh in, > > > particularly Pieter and Andrii as they will be most impacted by a > > > later start. My hope is that everyone can make it for most of the > > > meeting starting at 17:00 UTC (09:00 PST, 18:00 CET, 19:00 SAST). If > > > this too late for some folks, I suggest that we alternate these > > > gatherings between 16:00 and 18:00 UTC start times. > > > > > > Please let me know your thoughts on the later times. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Cole > > > > > > On 2026/01/16 02:17:27 Cole Greer wrote: > > > > Thank you to everyone who joined the gathering today. A summary of > > > > the discussions is included below. The next gathering is currently > > > > scheduled for Jan 29 at 16:00 UTC. Please let me know if you're > > > > interested in joining and if any change of schedule would be > > > > helpful. > > > > > > > > Attendance: > > > > - Cole Greer > > > > - Pieter Martin > > > > - Yang Xia > > > > - Ken Hu > > > > > > > > Transactions: > > > > The largest topic of conversation was transactions in TinkerPop 4. > > > > The discussion covered many of the differences between embedded and > > > > remote transactions in TP3, and how there is some intentions to > > > > unify this in TP4. SQLG is primarily concerned with the embedded > > > > use case, and the existing model works well for those purposes. The > > > > existing remote transaction model cannot be retained in TP4 as its > > > > tightly coupled to sessions, which no longer present in TP4. The > > > > way that embedded transactions are currently bound to threads does > > > > not translate naturally to GLVs such as gremlin-js. Compatibility > > > > with frameworks such as Spring Boot was raised as a key > > > > requirement. There was substantial discussion around if TinkerPop > > > > should force the scoping of a transaction to a single thread, if > > > > they could be allowed to migrate between threads, or if the API > > > > should leave it open to implementers. The conversation model in > > > > JBoss Seam was raised as a potentially interesting case study to > > > > investigate. All parties expressed interest in continuing to look > > > > at other database implementations for inspiration, considering what > > > > requirements make sense for TinkerPop, and continuing the open > > > > [DISCUSS] threads to build consensus on this matter. > > > > > > > > JPMS: > > > > There were discussions of if TinkerPop should move to adopt JPMS. > > > > All parties agreed that modularization would be a good result for > > > > TinkerPop, there were concerns raised that lack of support from our > > > > current dependencies may create challenges with adoption as well as > > > > limiting the upside. > > > > > > > > Extensibility of the grammar: > > > > Some discussion resurfaced around a past devlist post to allow > > > > providers to extend the grammar > > > > (https://lists.apache.org/thread/528f5od4d9jrvw9mn0b6xlhtfhvddfoc). > > > > It was raised as a nice to have to limit the differences between > > > > embedded and remote usages. There was no discussion on the > > > > mechanics of implementing such capabilities. > > > > > > > > Dependencies: > > > > TinkerPop should strive to the number of dependencies (many are > > > > redundant or have limited usage). > > > > > > > > Semantics Documentation: > > > > There was support raised for a more clear distinction between the > > > > gremlin language specification and the reference implementation in > > > > TinkerPop. The gremlin semantics docs are progressing towards > > > > becoming a complete language specification, however that work is > > > > not complete and much of gremlin currently remains defined by the > > > > reference implementation. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Cole > > > > > > > > On 2026/01/12 23:24:48 Cole Greer wrote: > > > > > Hi Andrii and Yang, > > > > > > > > > > I've tentatively scheduled this series of gatherings to begin > > > > > this Thursday (Jan 15) at 16:00 UTC. I've scheduled the gathering > > > > > to repeat every 2 weeks. This can of course always be altered > > > > > based on availability and interest. > > > > > > > > > > I've sent a calendar invite to everyone who has replied here, as > > > > > well as Ken and Pieter who expressed interest in Discord. Feel > > > > > free to forward the invite to anyone else who is interested, and > > > > > I will continue inviting anyone who asks. > > > > > > > > > > Others may use the following link to join the meeting as well: > > > > > https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup-join/19%3ameeting_MTk3OTIxYzktYTU1MC00YzQzLTllM2MtMzk5YjdjMzk5MDli%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 > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Cole > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/01/12 17:34:16 Yang Xia wrote: > > > > > > Hi Cole, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for setting these up! I like the idea of having the > > > > > > meeting on Teams instead of Discord, it helps to mark them in > > > > > > my calendar. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm open to Wednesdays, but I do have an alternative commitment > > > > > > at 8:30am PT, so I'd prefer Tuesday or Thursday if possible, in > > > > > > case the discussions go long. > > > > > > > > > > > > Will the meetings start at the end of January? > > > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > > > > > Yang > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2026/01/10 05:29:24 Andrii Lomakin wrote: > > > > > > > Good day, Cool. > > > > > > > Please include me in invite. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Jan 2026, 23:48 Cole Greer via dev, > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d like to propose the establishment of recurring meetings > > > > > > > > to assist with > > > > > > > > engagement and alignment across the TinkerPop community. > > > > > > > > I envision these meetings as a place where folks can > > > > > > > > discuss any ideas, > > > > > > > > concerns, or goals they may have related to TinkerPop. All > > > > > > > > formal proposals and development decisions will remain in > > > > > > > > the dev list. > > > > > > > > These meetings would be open to anyone who’d like to join, > > > > > > > > and meeting notes would be taken and posted back to the > > > > > > > > devlist for anyone > > > > > > > > who couldn’t attend. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that approximately once every 2 weeks is a good > > > > > > > > cadence for these > > > > > > > > meetings. As most of the folks I see active here are > > > > > > > > located > > > > > > > > in Europe and North America, I think a time of 16:00 UTC > > > > > > > > (17:00 CET, 08:00 > > > > > > > > PST) is a good compromise to start with. I’m certainly open > > > > > > > > to other meetings times as folks express their > > > > > > > > availability. If these > > > > > > > > meetings draw interest from folks in Asia, Europe, and the > > > > > > > > Americas, > > > > > > > > then I would suggest we adopt a rotation of times such that > > > > > > > > there are some > > > > > > > > meetings available at a reasonable time to everyone who is > > > > > > > > interested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I’d suggest scheduling the meetings every 2nd Wednesday, > > > > > > > > although Tuesdays > > > > > > > > or Thursdays are also good if anyone expresses a > > > > > > > > preference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If there is sufficient interest, I would expect these new > > > > > > > > meetings to take > > > > > > > > the place of our current gathering on Discord. I would send > > > > > > > > invites to a Teams meeting to anyone who is interested, as > > > > > > > > well as making > > > > > > > > a meeting link publicly available. Anyone will be able to > > > > > > > > join > > > > > > > > without creating an account, as well as optionally via a > > > > > > > > browser. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you are interested in such meetings > > > > > > > > and if you have > > > > > > > > any preferences on scheduling. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Cole > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
