created this issue in jira for tracking and additional discussion: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-622
On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Matthias Broecheler <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 from the perspective of a vendor. When trying to develop strategies I > often find myself wondering "Am I missing any important steps" when doing > optimizations and such. I think marker interfaces go a long way in helping > with that because I now longer have to enumerate all the steps I can think > of and reason about them individually. Having coherent documentation would > be even nicer. > > On Thu, Apr 9, 2015 at 7:29 AM Marko Rodriguez <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Hi Stephen, > > > > That sounds good. I think we could put this in the docs (perhaps auto > > generated from preprocessor.sh) where we have a table of the all steps > and > > their inheritance (MapStep, FlatMapStep, etc.) as well as their > interfaces > > (Ranging, Mutating, etc.). This is easy to do with reflection and Kuppitz > > could have it inserted automagically on doc build. > > > > Marko. > > > > http://markorodriguez.com > > > > On Apr 9, 2015, at 5:26 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > This issue had me thinking a bit: > > > > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-620 > > > > > > As the list of marker interfaces grows for steps, it will be > interesting > > to > > > see how we will properly maintain them. It worries me a bit that there > > > could be ill-effects if we miss a marker for a step somewhere. Perhaps > > we > > > could do something generative in the docs to produce a "report" that > more > > > clearly shows the steps and their groupings via marker? Maybe a > matrix: > > > > > > > > > STEP | Mutating | Communitative | Ranging | ... > > > AddVertexStep | X | | | ... > > > RangeGlobalStep | | | X | ... > > > > > > Not only could we use something like this for general quality control > > > before release, but we it would be a pretty nice tool for strategy > > > developers to have as a reference. > > > > > > thoughts? > > > > >
