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?
