On 26 August 2016 at 12:35, Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: > On Fri 2016-08-26 11:32, Gunnar Morling wrote: >> > How much additional work would it be to keep the "old" rest in a legacy >> module separated from the pure one? >> > Does it even make sense? >> >> As a user, when would I prefer which one over the other? If Bolt is the >> general recommendation, I'd limit efforts on this one. It seems to be one >> of those knobs I'd prevent the user from having to set if possible. > > The one I can think of is not being able to open custom ports
In similar situations, I sometimes exposed other services over port 80 .. /me ducks and runs.. > >> >> > Can you write a blog post with a small poll to know if anyone complains >> > about dropping REST >> >> +1. Would be nice to get some feedback. >> >> >> >> 2016-08-26 10:10 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emman...@hibernate.org>: >> >> > Can you write a blog post with a small poll to know if anyone complains >> > about dropping REST. Let's have it on for a week and make a decision. If >> > nothing conclusive comes out, let's drop it. >> > >> > On Fri 2016-08-26 8:27, Davide D'Alto wrote: >> > > > Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to keep the >> > "old" rest in a legacy module >> > > >> > > It would still require to be maintained, I would prefer not to have it >> > > unless there is a specific use case for it >> > > >> > > >. Does Bolt run atop HTTP as I remember it >> > > >> > > I don't think so, it's a binary protocol that connects to a port using >> > sockets. >> > > >> > > > PS: it's a bit sad that we implement something (rest remote) and it's >> > ready and by lack of release it is replaced and remove it without seeing >> > the light of day. Release often. >> > > >> > > That's actually a bad call from my side, I wanted to release with the >> > > new ORM and it took longer than expected to merge the PR. >> > > >> > > Davide >> > > >> > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Emmanuel Bernard >> > > <emman...@hibernate.org> wrote: >> > > > Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to keep the >> > "old" rest in a legacy module separated from the pure one? >> > > > Does it even make sense? >> > > > >> > > > I'm fine with the removal and focus on bolt on a general basis. Does >> > Bolt run atop HTTP as I remember it ? Or is that specific ? If the later >> > some might want to keep using rest. >> > > > >> > > > Emmanuel >> > > > >> > > > PS: it's a bit sad that we implement something (rest remote) and it's >> > ready and by lack of release it is replaced and remove it without seeing >> > the light of day. Release often. >> > > > >> > > >> On 22 août 2016, at 22:25, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.s...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> >> > > >> Hi Davide, >> > > >> >> > > >> I wanted to add 2 things: >> > > >> - Neo4j remote with Rest has not been released yet; >> > > >> - if we remove the Rest protocol, remote Neo4j will only be supported >> > with >> > > >> Neo4j >= 3 >> > > >> >> > > >> Personally I'm +1 to only support remote Neo4j with Bolt. Maintaining >> > one >> > > >> more dialect/protocol just to provide remote for Neo4j < 3 does not >> > sound >> > > >> like a good tradeoff to me. >> > > >> >> > > >> -- >> > > >> Guillaume >> > > >> >> > > >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Davide D'Alto <dav...@hibernate.org> >> > wrote: >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Hello, >> > > >>> at the moment in OGM we connect remotely using the Rest API. >> > > >>> The reason is that when I created the dialect the new Bolt[1] >> > protocol >> > > >>> wasn't available. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I've now finished implementing the dialect so that it uses the Bolt >> > > >>> protocol, there is a lot of duplication since it is very similar to >> > > >>> the approach I used for Rest. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I worked for a while trying to improve the code but I started to >> > > >>> wonder if it might be really helpful to provide two ways to connect >> > > >>> remotely with an increase in complexity of the code (more interfaces >> > > >>> mainly with some additional classes). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> I'm now of the idea that we could remove the dialect thata uses Rest >> > > >>> and only keep the one that uses Bolt (as suggested by Giulliame in an >> > > >>> old chat on hipchat). >> > > >>> >> > > >>> This will simplify the code and we can always add it back if the need >> > > >>> arise or somebody asks. >> > > >>> Note that the Bolt protocol is the suggested one to use for Neo4j >> > > >>> since it promises better performance. >> > > >>> It will also allow us to remove some dependencies required for the >> > rest >> > > >>> client. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Please, let me know if you think there is value in keeping both >> > > >>> approaches, otherwise I'm going to send a PR that removes the remote >> > > >>> one. >> > > >>> >> > > >>> Thanks, >> > > >>> Davide >> > > >>> >> > > >>> [1] https://dzone.com/articles/introducing-bolt-neo4js- >> > > >>> upcoming-binary-protocol-p >> > > >>> _______________________________________________ >> > > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list >> > > >>> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > > >> _______________________________________________ >> > > >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> > > >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > _______________________________________________ >> > > > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > > > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > _______________________________________________ >> > hibernate-dev mailing list >> > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev