> Somehow I think it would be simpler to extend gremlin-server's > functionality with a DDP plugin. > I'm not sure what the extent of the work required for this would > be but I would expect it to be less work than a port, and at > least it would give access to all the features with much less maintenance. > Have you considered this and reject it for some reason?
Yes, I have considered it and that is a big part of what I have planned. This project https://github.com/coreyauger/reactive-gremlin looks very similar to parts of DDP. What I am really asking about is the client-side-cache contribution to DDP. http://info.meteor.com/blog/introducing-ddp On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:40 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Fred, thanks for sharing your project. I don't know much about DDP, so > I can't comment much on that. Can you clarify what you mean by "Port the > in-memory version to javascript using the google closure compiler." Do you > mean port TinkerGraph to javascript? Yes (that might be what I mean) Hmm, maybe this? https://github.com/jbmusso/tinkergraph-js The idea is that the client-side-cache is a "miniGremlin" containing a subgraph of the server-side-graph-database. This allows for better performance in low-bandwidth conditions, and leaves the door open for limited off-line work. > > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 10:13 AM, Fred Eisele <fredrick.eis...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I am beginning an investigation into making a Distributed Data Protocol > > version of Tinkerpop3. > > https://www.meteor.com/ddp > > > > I have been using Tinkerpop3 for a while now but not as a developer. > > Here is my plan. > > * Port the in-memory version to javascript using the google closure > > compiler. > > * Build a DDP mechanism based on the tinkerpop3 API > > * Integrate into AppShare https://github.com/zubairq/AppShare > > > > Questions: > > * Is there some compelling reason why this is a bad idea? > > * What portion of the code base is relevant? > > * Has this been tried before? > > * Is there a synchronization already present? > > > > Thanks > > >
