Re: Permission to Use Modified Gremlin Image

Hi Filipe! I'm not a lawyer but I think you can use it in the context you mentioned. The guidelines are clear: A character graphic can be manipulated ("dressed up") and used without > permission as long as it’s being used in an Apache TinkerPop related > context and it is acknowledged that the

Re: [DISCUSS] Next releases: 3.5.5 / 3.6.2 / 3.7.0 (?)

I agree with moving the target date for 3.7.0 and only releasing 3.5.5 and 3.6.2 for now. On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:20 PM Florian Hockmann wrote: > Hi, > > > > our last release was already in July, and I think we now have a lot of > contributions in the dev branches, so I'd like to propose we

Re: Gremlin Go Release Candidate

Thanks! I'm looking forward for the GA releases!! On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 2:36 AM Lyndon Bauto wrote: > I made a mistake in the previous tags. I have corrected it, the links are: > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/tree/gremlin-go/v3.6.1-rc4 >

Re: [DISCUSS] TinkerPop Golang Driver (coming soon!)

Sounds good! looking forward to it! I hope I can have some free cycles to help review it. On Tue, Jan 18, 2022 at 11:25 PM Lyndon Bauto wrote: > Hi all, > > I am working on a Golang driver for TinkerPop. I will be working on it on > my fork of TinkerPop >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.5.2 Release

VOTE +1 On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:19 PM Kelvin Lawrence wrote: > VOTE +1 > > Cheers, Kelvin > > > > On Jan 11, 2022, at 05:39, Stephen Mallette > wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.5.2 is ready for release. > > > > The release artifacts can be found at

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.5.0 Release

Yay! 3.5.0! VOTE +1 On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 10:08 AM wrote: > VOTE +1 > > One small issue I found while reviewing the upgrade docs though: > TINKERPOP-2317 removed support for Python lambdas in Gremlin Server, but > Gremlin.Net still supports sending them. This is also documented in the >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.11 Release

VOTE +1 On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 11:10 AM wrote: > I mostly reviewed the docs and all looks good. > > VOTE +1 > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Stephen Mallette > Gesendet: Dienstag, 4. Mai 2021 18:00 > An: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > Betreff: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.11 Release > > Hello,

Re: [VOTE] Accepting the gremlint donation

VOTE +1 On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 5:52 AM Divij Vaidya wrote: > Vote +1 > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2021 at 2:23 AM Stephen Mallette > wrote: > > > This vote is mostly a formality at this point as we had consensus[1][2] > > months ago on accepting the gremlint donation from Øyvind Sæbø and > Arqdoc. > >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.10 Release

VOTE +1 On Tue, Jan 19, 2021 at 6:57 PM Divij Vaidya wrote: > vote +1 > > > > > > On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 3:29 PM Stephen Mallette > wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.4.10 is ready for release. > > > > The release artifacts can be found at this location: > >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.9 Release

VOTE +1 On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 8:05 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > Hello, > > We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.4.9 is ready for release. > > The release artifacts can be found at this location: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tinkerpop/3.4.9/ > > The source distribution

Re: [DISCUSS] withEmbedded()

I think naming it withEmbedded() can help users understand the difference between the two modes (I remember it took me a while to grasp it). On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kelvin Lawrence wrote: > I think this makes good sense and improves the naming consistency. > > Cheers, > Kelvin > > On

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop3.4.8 Release

VOTE +1 On Mon, Aug 3, 2020 at 4:46 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > Hello, > > We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.4.8 is ready for release. > > The release artifacts can be found at this location: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tinkerpop/3.4.8/ > > The source distribution

Re: [DISCUSS] Long term use of templates in GLVs

uld you > explain what you have in mind a bit further? > > > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 7:38 AM Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorge.gon...@datastax.com> > wrote: > > > Sorry for being so late in the discussion, I've missed this discussion > > originally and

Re: [DISCUSS] Long term use of templates in GLVs

plify the > build a bit and drop the use of the template system going forward. If this > is a bad idea for some reason, then what might we do to make the templating > system better and easier to maintain? > -- Jorge Bay Gondra e. jorge.gon...@datastax.com w. www.datastax.com

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.3.11 Release

VOTE +1 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:33 PM Florian Hockmann wrote: > VOTE +1 > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Stephen Mallette > Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 19:30 > An: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > Betreff: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.3.11 Release > > Hello, > > We are happy to announce that

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.7 Release

VOTE +1 On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 5:39 PM Florian Hockmann wrote: > VOTE +1 > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Stephen Mallette > Gesendet: Montag, 1. Juni 2020 22:45 > An: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org > Betreff: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.7 Release > > Hello, > > We are happy to announce that

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.6 Release

VOTE +1 On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 7:58 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > Hello, > > Well in pretty fast turn-around fashion Apache TinkerPop 3.4.6 is ready for > release. As a reminder, this release only contains a patch to fix a bug > found in 3.4.5 around drop() of properties. There will not be a

Re: travis and docker/gremlin-python

Nice! thanks! On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 7:10 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > I seem to have resolved the docker problem with: > > > https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/commit/9c829cab193d769afb0d3687b37d372418d135f9 > > > travis appears content with that aspect of the build now on all release >

Re: [DISCUSS] release 3.4.6

Thanks for starting the discussion. It's a good thing that it was identified so quickly, I think we should tackle this asap to affect the least amount of users and providers. 1. yes. 2. review/merge and then immediate VOTE. I think we shouldn't wait for other potential issues. On Wed, Feb 12,

Re: [DISCUSS] Node.js runtime support

ant to stay on > an > > older runtime version, can stay on a lower TinkerPop version which we > > usually support for another year or so. That should be enough time to > > update. > > > > Regards, > > Florian > > > > -Ursprüngliche Nachric

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.5 Release

, if needed. Thanks, Jorge On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:46 PM Jorge Bay Gondra wrote: > VOTE +1 > > On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:35 PM Stephen Mallette > wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.4.5 is ready for release. >> >> The re

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.5 Release

VOTE +1 On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 3:35 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > Hello, > > We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.4.5 is ready for release. > > The release artifacts can be found at this location: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tinkerpop/3.4.5/ > > The source distribution

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.3.10 Release

VOTE +1 On Tue, Feb 4, 2020 at 12:50 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > Hello, > > We are happy to announce that TinkerPop 3.3.10 is ready for release. > > The release artifacts can be found at this location: > https://dist.apache.org/repos/dist/dev/tinkerpop/3.3.10/ > > The source

[DISCUSS] Node.js runtime support

Hi, I wanted to formalize some kind of policy regarding Node.js runtime support. This may apply to other runtimes (I imagine C#). I propose that when a new minor version of TinkerPop is released, the runtime supported for that new branch would be the active LTS

Re: [TinkerPop] New Committer: Divij Vaidya

Welcome Divij!! On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 5:30 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache TinkerPop has asked > Divij Vaidya to become a committer and we are pleased to announce his > acceptance. > > Divij has issued a number of pull requests to TinkerPop around

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.4.4 Release

VOTE +1 On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:22 AM Robert Dale wrote: > Other than the same minor formatting issues as 3.3.9, everything looks to > be in order. > > VOTE +1 > > Robert Dale > > > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 1:10 PM Daniel Kuppitz wrote: > > > *Validating binary distributions* > > > > *

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.3.9 Release

VOTE +1 On Thu, Oct 17, 2019 at 2:15 AM Robert Dale wrote: > Good catches, Daniel. I can take the first three fixing the formatting > issues as an action item. > > VOTE +1 > > Robert Dale > > > On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 2:48 PM Daniel Kuppitz wrote: > > > *Validating binary distributions* > > >

Re: [DISCUSS] GraphBinary: Wrap Netty Buffer in public API

up the possibility of using GraphBinary > beyond the drivers (e.g. OLAP perhaps as a full replacement for Gryo). > > > > On Fri, Oct 4, 2019 at 7:49 AM Jorge Bay Gondra > wrote: > > > Hi, > > As part of GraphBinary implementation, it was decided to use Netty Buf

[DISCUSS] GraphBinary: Wrap Netty Buffer in public API

Hi, As part of GraphBinary implementation, it was decided to use Netty Buffer API for serialization, which has several benefits over nio . There's a problem with approach taken though, the API of TypeSerializer, GraphBinaryReader

Re: [DISCUSS] Adding asf.yaml

Thanks for the proposal, lgtm! We could also add `graphdb` as a label. On Thu, Sep 5, 2019 at 12:30 PM Stephen Mallette wrote: > Committers probably saw the notice but it looks like infra has added the > ability for us to include an asf.yaml file to our repo which can help > automate a few

Re: Travis Job Naming

Oh looks way cleaner! Thanks! One thing we lost with this layout is the ability to run multiple test groups in parallel, build time went from ~42mins to 1h19m . The underlying

Re: [DISCUSS] Null Handling 3.5.x

I think having a null literal makes sense. It plays well with existent SQL providers, where there are representations for null: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.dbnull.value I would propose another literal: UNSET. On some db providers, there's a distinction between NULL, that

Re: [DISCUSS] Official Support of GraphBinary

I'm +1 on the approach, tbh I'm partial to GraphBinary :D Trying to complete GraphBinary support in the GLVs for 3.4.x line seems feasible, it shouldn't be much work to implement as most of the heavy lifting was done on the server part. It would be nice to run all GLV integration tests (gherkin

Re: [DISCUSS] The Two Protocols of TP4

Bytecode directly? > > Thus, for every Gremlin language variant, we will have an ANTLR parser. > > Marko. > > http://rredux.com <http://rredux.com/> > > > > > > On Apr 23, 2019, at 5:01 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > Langua

Re: [DISCUSS] The Two Protocols of TP4

Hi, Language recognition engines will give us a set of tokens, usually in some sort of tree but the result can be thought of nested collections, for example: The following string "g.V().values('name')" could be parsed into something like [["g"], ["V"], ["values", "name"]]. Then, we would have to

Re: [DISCUSS] The Two Protocols of TP4

Hi, I'm still trying to catch up with TP4 topics. I agree that we can reuse bytecode to submit gremlin string literals, like [[submit, [ex:script, gremlin-groovy, g.V.out.name]]] Instead of supporting a ScriptEngine or enable providers to implement one, TP4 could be a good opportunity to ditch

Re: ATTN Committers/PMC Members: Bio Update

I've updated my bio to include GraphBinary in CTR fashion. On Tue, Feb 5, 2019 at 10:55 AM Florian Hockmann wrote: > My bio is also still up-to-date. > > Regards, > Florian > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Robert Dale > Gesendet: Sonntag, 3. Februar 2019 03:50 > An:

Re: Development branch cleanup

lgtm I think that with GitBox enabled, going forward, we should be able to delete our branches, right? El lun., 22 oct. 2018 a las 16:56, Daniel Kuppitz () escribió: > The following branches are scheduled for deletion: > > TINKERPOP-1342 -- [TINKERPOP-1342] Allow setting scriptEvaluationTimeout

Re: [DISCUSS] Revised Git Flow

I think we should continue using the same process, creating a pull request against the correct branch, merge it (using button or manually) and merge upstream manually. Using separate pull requests for each branch creates an unnecessary overhead / noise in most cases. The main disadvantage is the

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin Service Provider

I think the name used in the providers section "TinkerPop-Enabled Graph Systems" is clear. An alternative would be "Gremlin-Enabled Graph Systems". El mar., 16 oct. 2018 a las 4:11, Robert Dale () escribió: > I like the name but not entirely sure I'm

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.2.10, 3.3.4, 3.4.0 Releases

I agree we should start looking at timelines for 3.2.10 and 3.3.4 and don't bother yet with a 3.4 release. El mar., 18 sept. 2018 a las 1:51, Stephen Mallette () escribió: > I've been floating around "end of summer" for a release time frame for some > time now. Well, end of summer is basically

Re: [DISCUSS] Review Process

I'm +1 on the idea of switching to lazy consensus after a single binding plus one and a week for objection. TinkerPop has so many different modules / areas and committers have different expertise that is hard to get 3 votes on something. Other projects have the concept of main "reviewer" and this

Re: [Discuss] 3.4.0 GLV packages

I've pushed manually El lun., 2 jul. 2018 a las 15:07, escribió: > Shouldn't that also have published a RC version of the new .NET template > or did you publish Gremlin.Net manually without using Maven? > > -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- > Von: Jorge Bay Gondra > Gesende

Re: [Discuss] 3.4.0 GLV packages

I guess I don't mind changing next time. > > > > On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 6:56 AM Jorge Bay Gondra > wrote: > > > I've published 3.4.0-rc1 on npm: > > https://www.npmjs.com/package/gremlin?activeTab=versions > > > > I don't have access to publish Gremli

Re: [Discuss] 3.4.0 GLV packages

I've published 3.4.0-rc1 on npm: https://www.npmjs.com/package/gremlin?activeTab=versions I don't have access to publish Gremlin.Net on nuget.org, can anyone grant me access? El lun., 2 jul. 2018 a las 11:45, Jorge Bay Gondra (< jorgebaygon...@gmail.com>) escribió: > About np

Re: [Discuss] 3.4.0 GLV packages

dest versions go up first? > > > > Lastly, just a reminder to everyone, that this 3.4.0-rc1 is just a > > development release for very early testing purposes. We aren't promoting > > this convenience release in any way. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jun 29,

Re: [Discuss] 3.4.0 GLV packages

n 22, 2018 at 9:50 AM Jorge Bay Gondra > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > It would be nice to have public alpha/beta releases of the 3.4 GLVs to > > start trying out the 3.4 branch. > > > > If needed, I could take the work of publishing the node.js package for > this > > prerelease. > > > > wdyt? > > Jorge > > >

[Discuss] 3.4.0 GLV packages

Hi, It would be nice to have public alpha/beta releases of the 3.4 GLVs to start trying out the 3.4 branch. If needed, I could take the work of publishing the node.js package for this prerelease. wdyt? Jorge

Re: [DISCUSS] Serialization Symmetry [was: [DISCUSS] Handling of problematic GraphSON types]

be: Gremlin should not concern itself with storage > >> schemas. As an extension of that, Gremlin should not concern itself with > >> storage size. Next would be: Gremlin should not be Java-specific. > Finally, > >> it should be hard to add a new type, i.e. it's demon

Re: [DISCUSS] Handling of problematic GraphSON types

these decisions > > > clearer. First would be: Gremlin should not concern itself with > storage > > > schemas. As an extension of that, Gremlin should not concern itself > with > > > storage size. Next would be: Gremlin should not be Java-specific. > > Fina

Re: [DISCUSS] Handling of problematic GraphSON types

Thanks Florian for starting the discussion on this topic! I think its a good exercise to evaluate which types are necessary for a GLV to support. I went through a similar exercise when designing the binary serialization format. I'll go ahead and propose: All types that are considered "Core",

Re: [DISCUSS] Consider patch release 3.2.9/3.3.3

sgtm, I'm also +1 on releasing patch releases asap to fix it. Regarding gremlin-javascript, we could include TINKERPOP-1944 (I just submitted a pull request) but I'm not sure we can include TINKERPOP-1943, the implementation is trivial but it will require some changes to make the test suite pass

Re: Congratulations Stephen!

Whoa, congrats Stephen!!! Thats a nice milestone! 2018-04-18 14:52 GMT+02:00 Robert Dale : > 1 million lines of code contributed! > > spmallette 5,441 commits > 1,009,909 > ++

Re: [TinkerPop] TinkerPop 3.2.8 Released: Nine Inch Gremlins

I'm really excited we have the first official release of the JavaScript GLV!!! Thanks Ted and Stephen for publishing 3.2.8 and 3.3.2! YAY! On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 2:11 PM, Ted Wilmes wrote: > Good catch, thanks Stephen. > > --Ted > > > On Tue, Apr 10, 2018, 7:56 AM Stephen

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.2.8 Release

py but do we need to kill the artifacts we've already > built over that? how bad would it be if we simply remembered to make that > change at time of deployment? would that cause problems? > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:44 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > > >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.2.8 Release

It looks like the JavaScript package still points to "gremlin-javascript", instead of "gremlin" https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/blob/3.2.8/gremlin-javascript/src/main/javascript/gremlin-javascript/package.json#L2 We should change that on both 3.2 and 3.3 branches. Also, if you are planning

Re: [DISCUSS] JIRA Issues in Commits

I wouldn't like to enforce it for commits that are part of the pull request review flow, I think it would be a burden for new contributors. To track the origin of a commit we can always look on Github web interface (at the top of the commit). For example: this commit

Re: [DISCUSS] Drop support for Giraph in 3.4.0

I'm +1 on removing support for Giraph. We should try to simplify the build as much as possible and this integration doesn't seem to be very useful or in demand, specially with gremlin OLAP. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 7:34 PM, Stephen Mallette wrote: > A week or so ago I

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.2.8/3.3.2 Release Issues

Lambdas in .NET is blocked by TINKERPOP-1901, I've updated JIRA to reflect that. I don't know if we can make it with the current scope in that timeline. I have very little / no time available for the .NET GLV issues until the end of next week... On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 9:35 PM, Stephen Mallette

Re: Merge of TINKERPOP-1777

Looks good to me, so you have my vote :) No need to rollback IMO. On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 6:05 PM, Stephen Mallette wrote: > I expected to do a +1 today - personally, i don't think you need go through > the hassle of rollback for an official vote. > > On Wed, Mar 7, 2018

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

the board plus the other issues I'd like to > see done) plus a week of code freeze. is that a good target? > > On Fri, Feb 23, 2018 at 3:20 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I'm referring to an official release of all artifacts for version

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

a, .net, etc) for > 3.3.2/3.2.8), right? > > On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > Hi, > > Regarding the npm issue, we created a ticket on the npm issue tracker: > > https://github.com/npm/registry/is

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

Any luck? On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 9:43 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote: > hm... that's weird... It's working on my end with a different package... > > Maybe use a newer npm cli version? > > If npm access is still failing after cli upgrade, you could u

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

GET https://registry.npmjs.org/-/whoami > npm http 200 https://registry.npmjs.org/-/whoami > jbmusso > > Funny, I got confused in my previous posts and just realized that: I was > prettier sure I owned gremlin-javascript, but I used to publish > under gremlin-client. > >

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hmm. It looks like you can only grant access to team of developers for > @scoped package, but not for standard (unscoped) packages. > I can make the "tinkerpop" user owner of that "gremlin" package, if that > helps. > > Jean-Baptiste

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

ave ways > > to make sure users don't break in unclear ways. I'll give others a chance > > to respond and barring no additional discussion will get The Baptist > added > > to the org in npm. i guess we can proceed to the next step from there. > > > > On Mon, Feb 5

Re: [DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

ow the npm > > environment too well. Can a break be expected for people? The current > > version of https://www.npmjs.com/package/gremlin is at 2.6.0 and we > would > > publish at 3.x which people could expect as a breaking change, no? > > > > On Tue, Jan 30, 2018 at 9:54 AM, Jorg

[DISCUSS] Gremlin JavaScript release

Hi, Now that the JavaScript GLV has been merged, it will be nice to have an official pre-release (RC / beta) on the npm package manager as soon as possible to allow users to start giving it a try. The package name identifier in the package.json is currently gremlin-javascript

Re: [TinkerPop] Re: New Committer: Kelvin Lawrence

Welcome Kevin!!! On Wed, Jan 3, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Jason Plurad wrote: > Congrats, Kelvin! > > On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:49:57 AM UTC-5, Stephen Mallette wrote: >> >> The Project Management Committee (PMC) for Apache TinkerPop has asked >> Kelvin Lawrence to become a

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.3.1 Release

VOTE +1 On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 10:37 PM, Michael Pollmeier < mich...@michaelpollmeier.com> wrote: > Thanks Stephen! > > I upgraded gremlin-scala, no issues. > https://github.com/mpollmeier/gremlin-scala/tree/michael/tp3.3.1 > > vote +1 > > Michael > > > On 18/12/17 05:54, Stephen Mallette

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.2.7 Release

VOTE: +1 On Sun, Dec 17, 2017 at 11:04 PM, David Brown wrote: > docker/build.sh -t -i -n > > [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS > [INFO] > > [INFO] Total time: 3:56:54.392s > [INFO] Finished at: Sun Dec 17 21:40:30

Re: [DISCUSS] GitBox

Having the possibility to use the GitHub merge and "squash and merge" buttons would be really nice! On Thu, Dec 7, 2017 at 1:09 PM, Stephen Mallette wrote: > Apache has had a service called GitBox which allows projects to quit using > the mirror system and commit directly

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.3.1/3.2.7 December Release

There is one ticket I'd like to include related to .NET GLV: TINKERPOP-1825 (includes API changes, related to code generation). I don't know if Florian wanted to tackle it, otherwise I could work on it early next week. Besides that, I'm +1 on releasing once .NET test suite is merged. On Thu, Nov

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

e the PR. That will allow TINKERPOP-1827 to proceed > more easily and I can work more at more relaxed pace on migrating all the > tests. Please let me know if there are any concerns with that approach. > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 5:02 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

/gherkin-cs-runner I'll wait for TINKERPOP-1784 to be resolved in order the follow the last changes and submit a pull request for it. On Tue, Oct 31, 2017 at 11:09 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > wrote: > Ok. > Going back to my initial comment regarding enums: don'

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

t; works now was a nice check to ensure that the ScriptEngine was configured > properly. I guess that shouldn't be the focus on this body of tests though. > We should be more concerned that the elements of the Gremlin language > actually work. > > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 8:47 AM, Jorge

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

to then parse it into it's native language. > Shouldn't we just build a CSharpTranslator similar to these? does that make > sense? > > > On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 11:11 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I've been looking o

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

> > keep scanning the tests looking for other types of assertions that I've > not > > yet covered, but it's getting pretty solid I think. Hopefully, there > won't > > need to be too many more lines of code needed to express the test logic > as > > I like how

Re: [DISCUSS] Binary serialization format

ptimizations for better > > performance. Python for instance, can use C extensions or Cython to > > get huge performance gains working with binary data... > > > > On Tue, Oct 24, 2017 at 6:27 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra > > <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi, > &

[DISCUSS] Binary serialization format

Hi, I wanted to bring up the possibility to include a specific (as in non-generic) serialization formal for Graph data. I didn't want to bump the last dev discussion on serialization formats

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

for our current GLV testing work, but we might be able to simply use > them for testing the Java stuff as well - that would rid us of having the > test code duplication. It also sets us up with a portable body of tests > that can be re-used in TinkerPop 4.x. > > I'm open to suggest

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

omplicated test implementation. > Hopefully that will help make the .NET approach as easy as possible. > > On Fri, Sep 22, 2017 at 8:20 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > I've been looking into Gherkin support for .NET: SpecFlow, the cu

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

option and try to understand the effort required... On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Nice! Gherkin will make our lives easier with a growing number of GLVs. > > We should find a way to define the different features supported by

Re: GraphSON3 collections and subtypes

gt; I haven't gone into deep thought on altering GraphSON in the manner you > describe, but without knowing other options it makes me feel uneasy to > think about. hehe > > > > On Wed, Sep 20, 2017 at 4:28 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> > wrot

Re: GraphSON3 collections and subtypes

gt; > Is there a way to do that? how do we know what's in the Map/List until we > iterate it all? > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:38 PM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > > wrote: > > > I wanted to bump this open discussion that after the JIRA adjustments &g

Re: GraphSON3 collections and subtypes

I wanted to bump this open discussion that after the JIRA adjustments probably got buried. On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 2:31 PM, Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com> wrote: > Collections with unspecified child types are useful for mixed types, but > we are reusing those types of

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV Test Suite

Nice! Gherkin will make our lives easier with a growing number of GLVs. We should find a way to define the different features supported by each GLV, as it's reasonable to have different maturity levels per GLV (ie: lambdas support, traversal strategy, ...). I don't know if it will be beneficial

Re: GraphSON3 collections and subtypes

ed > > types. Maybe I don't understand the use case. > > > > Robert Dale > > > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Jorge Bay Gondra < > > jorgebaygon...@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > The new GraphSON3 g:List, g:Set an

GraphSON3 collections and subtypes

Hi, The new GraphSON3 g:List, g:Set and g:Map definitions are an improvement over js arrays and associative arrays, but they doesn't provide the child type information. We could add support for chid type info, something like "g:List" or "g:Map". For typed languages, it would

Re: [DISCUSS] Some JIRA adjustments

I'm +1 on adding all fix versions that it was applied to. I'm +1 on adding a component per GLV. On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 1:07 PM, Robert Dale wrote: > +1 for labeling all versions applied to > > > > Robert Dale > > On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 6:46 AM, Stephen Mallette

Re: Gremlin.Net GA release

at we can use that same pattern against future GLVs that > aren't on the JVM at all. > > I think we should focus on trying to clear these issues (and others if they > exist) for 3.2.7/3.3.1 so that we can go full GA with .NET for those > releases. Does that sound like a plan? >

Re: [VOTE] TinkerPop 3.2.6 Release

VOTE +1 On Tue, Aug 22, 2017 at 9:19 PM, pieter gmail wrote: > Ran Sqlg's own test suite and TinkerPop's structured and process test > suites on Sqlg. > All passes. > > VOTE +1 > > Cheers > Pieter > > > > On 22/08/2017 20:29, Robert Dale wrote: > >> VOTE +1 >> >> Robert

Re: [DISCUSS] 3.1.x EOL

3.1 line is about 2 years old, I think its a lot of time for a relatively new project like TinkerPop. I'm in favor of making 3.1.8 the last release of the 3.1 branch. On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 12:51 PM, Stephen Mallette wrote: > We have taken backward compatibility and long

Re: [DISCUSS] gremlin-dotnet preview release and merging

I agree that it's in a good shape for a preview release. It's great contribution by Florian H. and it would be nice to have a release available to start gathering feedback. I'll post a few open discussions/issues on JIRA that can be addressed in the short/mid term but that should not prevent the

Re: [DISCUSS] GLV branch

Hi, I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "The method for testing GLVs is not language agnostic"? It would be nice to have a reusable test suite to make a GLV pass through but it would involve a communication mechanism between 2 different runtimes (ie: jvm and dotnet) that could be very hard

Re: GLV - Languages with no JVM support

gt; > > Regarding the integration in TinkerPop: I would also suggest to > > > implement the GLV for .NET Core which would allow to build and test > > > it on Unix systems. > > > > > > Another question is the choice of the driver for the GLV. You >

GLV - Languages with no JVM support

Hi, After the [Javascript GLV][1], I'm thinking of creating a GLV for C#, but I don't know if a GLV for a language like C# or C++ with no JVM support (decent JVM language implementation nor scripting support) belongs in the TinkerPop repository as it won't be able to easily integrate with the rest