On 26 August 2016 at 16:28, Davide D'Alto <daltodav...@gmail.com> wrote: > I published an initial post on staging: > http://staging.in.relation.to/2016/08/26/should-we-drop-rest-for-neo4j/ > > I'm not sure how should I ask the user about it, let me know what you think. > Also, is there a way we prefer to generate poll for the website or I > can just rely on the comment?
Maybe make a poll on twitter? https://blog.twitter.com/2015/introducing-twitter-polls > > This one looks nice: http://www.poll-maker.com/ > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sa...@hibernate.org> wrote: >> 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 _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev