It sounds like this idea is generally "liked" - as such, I've created an issue in JIRA to track it:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1085 Perhaps we make it part of 3.1.2. On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 11:41 AM, pieter-gmail <pieter.mar...@gmail.com> wrote: > To add some more, > > The blank archetypes for some TinkerPop environment can include sample > junit test cases. This will show the user TinkerPop's suggestion as to > how to write proper test cases for the environment. > > For Neo4j the @Before can include starting the graph and the @After > closing it and possibly deleting the actual db files. > > One of the great joys I have had with embedded graphs is how easy it is > to write test cases without any mocking or stubbing involved. Test code > == Production code. > > Cheers > Pieter > > On 13/01/2016 18:20, pieter-gmail wrote: > > Yes both, the examples themselves could have an archetype that creates > > the stub example project for users to play with. The example archetypes > > could include the sample dataset, sample gremlin queries... > > > > Further there could be blank archetypes for all the different > > environments that TinkerPop natively supports. > > The main benefit is just to default the users pom, so that the user can > > happily start coding away with everything compiling. > > > > If there are blank archetypes it could even make it into the main > > 'Getting Started' documentation. > > mvn archtype tinkerpop-plain > > import favorite ide > > code away > > Graph.open(...) > > graph.addVertex(...) > > > > mvn archetype tinkerpop-gremlin-server > > start server > > curl this that > > > > A rather long time ago I created archetypes, kinda forgotten now but > > basically you create stub project mostly by hand, published it in maven > > central and voila, the users run a 'mvn something' command and they get > > the latest greatest incarnation of some TinkerPop environment as an > > empty maven project. > > > > Many people, myself included seldom read documentation from top to > > bottom. Rather one is anxious to just see something and the read the > > docs as the need arises. The seeing part includes not wanting to be > > frustrated by dependency versions, configuration et all to get up and > > running. > > > > Cheers > > Pieter > > > > On 13/01/2016 16:43, Stephen Mallette wrote: > >> Jason/Pieter, are you guys saying that you would prefer the publishing > of > >> an archtype over having gremlin-examples code? or are you saying you > would > >> have both? also, i spent a very short period of time looking at how to > >> publish archtypes and didn't get the answers i wanted in that time - do > >> either of you have experience with how that is done to offer a short > >> synopsis? > >> > >> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:34 PM, Jason Plurad <plur...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >>> +1 I like the Maven archetype idea to encourage folks to build their > own > >>> projects. Great suggestion, Pieter. > >>> On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:03 AM pieter-gmail <pieter.mar...@gmail.com> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> I have not looked at Jason's project but publishing some maven > >>>> archetypes will be useful. Especially for the more complex setups with > >>>> Hadoop, Spark, Neo4j etc. > >>>> > >>>> Cheers > >>>> Pieter > >>>> > >>>> On 09/01/2016 21:07, Stephen Mallette wrote: > >>>>> I was thinking that it might be cool to add a gremlin-examples > >>> sub-module > >>>>> that contained other sub-modules inside of that. Jason's "example > >>>> project" > >>>>> gets a lot of references and that's awesome but I'm starting to think > >>> we > >>>>> should fold it into the core repository (if he wants to do that, of > >>>> course, > >>>>> or we create a new one). > >>>>> > >>>>> I think we need to have sub-modules under gremlin-examples as there > are > >>>>> different types of examples folks might set up. There are ones like > >>>>> Jason's that sorta demonstrate how to get going with a basic maven > >>>> project, > >>>>> then there are ones that might focus on gremlin-driver type > >>> applications, > >>>>> etc. I don't think we would publish new artifacts or anything for > >>> these > >>>>> projects but it would be nice to be able to directly reference them > in > >>>>> documentation and stuff and have them link right to TinkerPop code. > >>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>> > >
