Hi, I don't think we should specify a "schema," but if you need this for better testing differentiation, then just a "true/false" supportsSchema.
Marko. http://markorodriguez.com On Nov 25, 2015, at 10:54 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> wrote: > i don't have anything in mind in particular, but i suppose the feature > would in some ways be preparation for such an actual feature. right now, i > just want to make sure that tests are controlled properly and assert the > right things if the graph supports coercing types to the types known in the > schema. it will just make the test suite more friendly. > > as for the actual feature of a schema abstraction, i guess that's a > separate discussion. off the top of my head, just offering a way for the > user to get a read-only view into a schema sounds like a good/easy sort of > start. of course, schema gets complex pretty fast even in that use case as > it brings with it the concept of indices and such. different providers > will have different attributes and representation of their schema. we'd > have to be so careful, so as to not make it so general and useless as > indexing abstractions in TP2. > > Maybe I shouldn't name the feature related to "schema" to avoid confusion - > maybe it should more be about supportsTypeCoercion - though that seems a > little too specific for the test cases i have in mind that are trouble > areas. > > On Wed, Nov 25, 2015 at 12:41 PM, pieter <[email protected]> wrote: > >> +1 >> >> What do you have in mind as a schema abstraction? >> >> On 25/11/2015 19:02, Stephen Mallette wrote: >>> We don't have a schema abstraction yet in TinkerPop, but graph providers >> do >>> support that capability. That capability can cause problems with the >>> TinkerPop test suite as the test suite sometimes makes assumptions about >>> types based on the immediate test bases we have in two schemaless graphs >> of >>> TinkerGraph and Neo4j - those assumptions tend to lead to problems. >>> >>> If we had a new Feature called supportsSchema() we would know if a graph >>> had that capability and we could write tests with different behaviors for >>> graph providers who have strong typing systems. >>> >>> Anyway, I've created an issue here that relates to this idea: >>> >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-992 >>> >>> If there are no objections to supportsSchema() in the next 72 hours >>> (Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 12pm), i'll assume lazy consensus and >> move >>> forward with that concept for 3.1.1-incubating. >>> >> >>
