[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-781?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14638147#comment-14638147
]
Matt Frantz commented on TINKERPOP3-781:
----------------------------------------
Why can't we do away with {{local}} altogether, since {{flatMap(Traversal)}}
seems to be better in every way, including support for reducing barrier steps
without loss of path information? If we like the {{local}} step name, we could
internally implement it with {{TraversalFlatMapStep}}, right?
{noformat}
gremlin> g.V(1).as('a').flatMap(both().fold()).as('b').path()
==>[v[1], [v[3], v[2], v[4]]]
gremlin> g.V(1).as('a').flatMap(both().fold()).as('b').select('a', 'b')
==>[a:v[1], b:[v[3], v[2], v[4]]]
{noformat}
> Local aggregation should not destroy path
> -----------------------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP3-781
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-781
> Project: TinkerPop 3
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: process
> Reporter: Matt Frantz
>
> Currently, if we do an aggregating step (e.g. {{fold}}, {{groupCount}}, etc.)
> within the {{local}} step, we lose the path information.
> {noformat}
> gremlin> g.V(1).local(both().fold()).path()
> ==>[[v[3], v[2], v[4]]]
> {noformat}
> It would be better if the preceding portion of the path were still retained
> like so:
> {noformat}
> gremlin> g.V(1).local(both().fold()).path()
> ==>[v[1], [v[3], v[2], v[4]]]
> {noformat}
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
