[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user okram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 Closing. Going to provide a simpler solution. ---

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user okram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 A `cap()` step is a `SupplyBarrierStep` and thus, requires an emission -- a single emission, but an emission nonetheless. The ultimate solution step has to a `FilterStep` by nature so it can truly

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user spmallette commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 I think I like @BrynCooke suggestion. an empty `cap()` currently generates an error so this might be a good use for it. being equivalent to `iterate()` seems logical to me. ---

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user BrynCooke commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 Would a cap step with no side effect keys be a better fit here rather than filter? It would remove the need for a 'false' traversal. ---

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user dkuppitz commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 `filter(false)` == `not(identity())` ---

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user spmallette commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 oh`filter(false)` referred to adding a `FilterStep` to the end of the traversal basically that didn't allow any traversers through. Of course, a provider writing a `TraversalStrategy`

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user okram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 There is nothing for "the server" to know. Thus, gutting the introspection. By appending `filter(false)` to the bytecode, you have a traversal that returns nothing. Which is exactly what you want.

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user okram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 I think we over engineered this ticket. I believe @dkuppitz has the best idea. ``` public Traversal iterate() { this.filter(false); while(hasNext()) { next();

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user okram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 Makes sense. ---

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user spmallette commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 In reviewing this, I think Gremlin Server needs a change. When we submit a remote traversal. Gremlin Server needs to check for `iterate()` in the bytecode and actually call `iterate()` rather

[GitHub] tinkerpop issue #748: TINKERPOP-1834: Consider iterate() as a first class st...

Github user okram commented on the issue: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/748 ``` [INFO] [INFO] BUILD SUCCESS [INFO]