Re: Relationship attributes

[Nigel L Jones]

I'm good with relatedEntities
 - relationshipAttributes is definately confusing
 - relationships isn't clear to me

other options could include
 - relatedEntityAttributes - but is a little longwinded
 - injectedAttributes - another option but perhaps unclear for some


Nigel Jones, Analytics CTO Office - jon...@uk.ibm.com



From:   Graham Wallis 
To: dev@atlas.apache.org
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj , Sarath Subramanian 

Date:   24/07/2017 09:58
Subject:Re: Relationship attributes



Personally I think 'relatedEntities' is clearer.

Best regards,
  Graham

Graham Wallis
IBM Analytics Emerging Technology Center
Internet: graham_wal...@uk.ibm.com 
IBM Laboratories, Hursley Park, Hursley, Hampshire SO21 2JN
Tel: +44-1962-815356Tie: 7-245356




From:   Madhan Neethiraj 
To: "dev@atlas.apache.org" , Sarath Subramanian 

Date:   24/07/2017 09:04
Subject:Re: Relationship attributes
Sent by:Madhan Neethiraj 



Current name of ‘relationshipAttributes’ makes sense looking from an 
entity point-of-view – it distinguishes regular-attributes of an entity 
from attributes injected by relationships. However, given that 
relationships can themselves might have attributes, it can be confusing.

I was going to suggest ‘relatedEntities’; but ‘relationships’ seems to be 
good choice.

+1 for naming the field as ‘relationships’.

Thanks,
Madhan


On 7/24/17, 12:53 AM, "David Radley"  wrote:

Hi Sarath,
Great, personally for the Entity's current relationshipAttributes, I 
prefer relationships as it is simpler - is there a reason you need 
attribute in the name?
 all the best, David. 
 
 
 
From:   Sarath Subramanian 
To: dev@atlas.apache.org
Cc: Madhan Neethiraj 
Date:   24/07/2017 07:09
Subject:Re: Relationship attributes
 
 
 
Hi David,
 
I agree with using the term 'relationship attributes' for attributes 
of
relationship, I suggest we use "relatedAttributes" for relationship
attributes of entity.
 
 
Thanks,
Sarath Subramanian
 
On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 2:22 AM, David Radley 

wrote:
 
> Hi Madhan,
> When I see the phrase 'relationship attributes', I am never quite 
sure
> whether we are referring to the attributes of an entity that relate 
to
> another entity or the attributes of the relationship instance 
itself. I
> think the phrase ' relationship attributes' more naturally fits as 
the
> attributes of the relationship itself; we are using it in the other 
sense.
>
> I suggest we change the relationshipAttributes in the entity to
> relationships (if you really want attributes in the name we could 
call 
it
> relatingAttributes)- and use the term 'relationship attributes' 
purely 
for
> the attributes of the relationship itself. What do you think?
> all the best, David.
> Unless stated otherwise above:
> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
number
> 741598.
> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire 
PO6 
3AU
>
 
 
 
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with 
number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 

3AU
 




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

Re: Maven restructure

[Nigel L Jones]

I also wanted to bring up the question of how we work with java8 when, for 
example, we're building an Atlas stack including Janus. Whilst that code 
requires Java 8 (is that for build, runtime or both?) in order to avoid 
accidentally breaking the other code for java 7 do we use the "-source 
1.7" option to only allow use of Java 1.7 features? Or in fact can we use 
1.8 happily for all our code as long as we use "-target 1.7" which should 
compile 1.7 compatible bytecode?

It's an area I'm not familar enough with, but just noting we need to 
understand/decide on best practice for use of -source and -target. 
 
Nigel.


Nigel Jones, Analytics CTO Office - jon...@uk.ibm.com



From:   David Radley 
To: Graham Wallis 
Cc: dev@atlas.apache.org
Date:   19/07/2017 14:10
Subject:Maven restructure



Hi Graham,
>From our discussion yesterday with Hortonworks, ING and IBM, I wanted to 
say that your proposal to clean up the Maven dependancies looks great - as 

you said this means that we will be able to cleanly add in JanusGraph (the 

replacement to Titan). 
 
>From what I took from yesterday, Atlas is tied to Hadoop (v2) because of 
its dependance on some Hadoop libraries and HBase. Hadoop is tied to java 
7. So the only Titan that we can easily use is 
 Titan 0.5.4 and TP 2. I wonder while you could look to split out the 
Hadoop dependancies, as these seem key drivers as to what Java and graphdb 

levels we can support. I wonder how compiling with Java 8 for Titan 1 / 
Janus deals with the Hadoop libraries and HBase dependancy - are these 
recompiled with Java 8 - how legitimate it this approach? 

   many thanks , David. 
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU



Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU