May I suggest:
Avant-gremlin (image attached).
Keepin' the OmniGraffle tradition alive. Didn't really think about a
number, but "forty two" comes to mind.
Josh
On Tue, Apr 17, 2018 at 5:35 AM, Stephen Mallette
wrote:
> We still need a name and logo for 3.4.x - we have
TinkerPop makes no guarantees about the order of elements unless you
specify an explicit order. This also goes back to the fact that certain
strategies (LazyBarrier-, RepeatUnroll- and PathRetractionStrategy) add
NoOpBarrierSteps to your traversal, which ultimately turns it into a
DFS/BFS mix.
Prashanth Madi created TINKERPOP-1939:
-
Summary: running spark-gremlin in gremlin console
Key: TINKERPOP-1939
URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1939
Project: TinkerPop
> Also it seems to me that DFS only really applies to repeat() with an
> emit().
> g.V().hasLabel("A").repeat().times(2) gets rewritten as
> g.V().hasLabel("A").out().out(). Are their subtleties that I am not
> aware of or does DFV vs BFS not matter in this case?
When I read this I thought:
Hi,
I agree with the question about whether this will affect more than just
repeat()?
I prefer that the semantics of the traversal be specified in the
traversal as a first class citizen. i.e. with order(SearchAlgo).
Strategies are to my mind internal to an implementation. In Robert's
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1936?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16440833#comment-16440833
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1936:
---
Github user robertdale commented on the issue:
Github user robertdale commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/839
VOTE +1
---
+1 on DFS
-1 on order(SearchAlgo)
It seems like a strategy may be more appropriate. It could affect more
than just repeat(). And how would this interact with LazyBarrierStrategy?
Maybe the default should be DFS with LazyBarrierStrategy. Then
LazyBarrierStrategy
can be removed with
[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1822?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel=16440812#comment-16440812
]
ASF GitHub Bot commented on TINKERPOP-1822:
---
Github user krlohnes commented on the issue:
Github user krlohnes commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/838
Thanks @spmallette I'll hold off on any more changes until things are
worked out with that DISCUSS thread
---
We still need a name and logo for 3.4.x - we have plenty of decent names,
but no one threw up logo ideas. Can't really go with a name without a logo
- we need both. Is anyone planning on following up their suggestion with a
logo? If not, I'll just do mine and we can get this settled up. Thanks.
Thanks for the summary. Just a quick note - I'd not worry about the GLV
tests for now. That part should be easy to sort out. Let's first make sure
that we get clear on the other items first before digging too deeply there.
On an administrative front, I think that this change should just go to
Stephen, That’s a fair summary. I had an immediate need for it, so I
developed something based on Michel Pollmeier’s work and a modification to
the syntax Pieter Martin suggested in the Jira
Well, the history goes more like this: The massive break came between
GraphSON 1.0 and 2.0+types, somewhere along the 3.2.x line. For 3.3.0 we
introduced GraphSON 3.0 which was mostly compatible with 2.0+types but
still not perfectly as new types were added and inconsistencies fixed. We
also opted
14 matches
Mail list logo