> You know what else i just noticed? > > http://gremlin.tinkerpop.com > http://rexster.tinkerpop.com > .... and so on > > all still point to the old wikis - should we consider changing those to > have them all just go to the 3.x home page?
I believe there are more people on 2.x than there are on 3.x. Thus, while we think 2.x is basically MS-DOS, we shouldn't hinder others still relying on those links. Over time things will wash out and also, if you are serious about TinkerPop, you will know whats going on. People who just click links and copy paste code snippets w/o being aware of 2.x/3.x sort of stuff aren't worth the trouble we will cause those who legitimately still use 2.x and the respective docs. Marko. > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> but maybe perhaps Stephen would like to get a talk like that at >> Cassandra Summit? >> >> hehe - i'm sure you could have found a way to make that topic interesting. >> i'm not so sure i could. :) >> >>> Psssht, the original Uni_pop _has Tinkerpop support, and a better >> unicorn logo... >> >> ha! >> >>> Seriously though, for wider Tinkerpop adoption it would be cool to have >> a >> general "Provider Template" along with the tutorial/blogpost : >> >> the "provider template" could be an addition to the maven archetypes we >> have then you just do: >> >> mvn archetype:generate -DarchetypeGroupId=org.apache.tinkerpop >> -DarchetypeArtifactId=gremlin-archetype-provider -DarchetypeVersion=3.2.1 >> -DgroupId=com.my-DartifactId=my-tinkerpop-implementation >> >> i'm not sure i want to volunteer to do that one, but that would be kinda >> cool. the only downside is that it's a fair bit of trouble to maintain a >> template/archetype for something that probably won't see a ton of use - >> unless there are suddenly hundreds of tinkerpop implementations :) >> >> >> >> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Marko Rodriguez <okramma...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> More stuff --- >>> >>> One thing I think that we really need to drive home to providers is >>> TraversalStrategies. That should be a blog post too. I've talked to two >>> graph databases providers recently and both were concerned about >>> performance through the TinkerPop API. They didn't know they could write >>> provider-specific strategies to bypass TinkerPop and talk directly to their >>> databases native APIs/optimizations. Once that was clear, both were like >>> "ahhhhhhh…." >>> >>> Marko. >>> >>> http://markorodriguez.com >>> >>> On May 25, 2016, at 9:18 AM, Ran Magen <rma...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Psssht, the original Uni_pop _has Tinkerpop support, and a better >>> unicorn >>>> logo... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Seriously though, for wider Tinkerpop adoption it would be cool to >>> have a >>>> general "Provider Template" along with the tutorial/blogpost : >>>> >>>> * Default `structure` implementation, with /*IMPLEMENT READ/WRITE/ETC >>> HERE*/ in the relevant places. >>>> >>>> * Default `process` implemantions (i.e. `TraversalStrategy`s). This >>> should probably be "commented out" at first, and "uncommented" after the >>> basic structure implementation is working. >>>> * Default setup of test suites. >>>> * Configurations >>>> * pom.xml >>>> * Gremlin Console plugin >>>> * Utility scripts (e.g. deploy&run in console/server) >>>> >>>> On May 25 2016, at 5:36 pm, Jason Plurad <plur...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Agreed. A big on-going problem TinkerPop has is that people invariably >>>> stumble upon TinkerPop 2 and Blueprints/Pipes. If they find TP2, maybe >>> they >>>> presume it is dead, so they roll their own. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> I've been tinkering recently in this space, more specifically to better >>>> understand the gremlin-test suite in general. A blog post sounds like a >>>> good idea. I can take a stab at it. >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Dylan Millikin >>>> <dylan.milli...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> > Maybe working on referencing these pages via perhaps a blog post >>> from >>>> > someone would be cool. Something along the lines of "Creating a >>> graph db >>>> > with Tinkerpop" or some other variation that may get good hit >>> results in >>>> a >>>> > google search. >>>> > >>>> > On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 10:06 AM, Stephen Mallette >>>> <spmalle...@gmail.com> >>>> > wrote: >>>> > >>>> > > We've seen a lot of new graphs come out that don't do >>> TinkerPop from >>>> the >>>> > > start. Perhaps they make a conscious decision not to - i >>> dunno. I >>>> just >>>> > > wonder if part of the problem is the provider docs for doing >>> an >>>> > > implementation: >>>> > > >>>> > > < >>> http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.2.0-incubating/dev/provider/> >>>> > > >>>> > > are they easy enough to find? do folks understand them and >>> what it >>>> means >>>> > to >>>> > > be tinkerpop-enabled? the docs could probably be improved - >>> any >>>> graph >>>> > > providers out there want to take a stab at it? in some ways >>> your >>>> external >>>> > > experience at implementing might be helpful in improving them. >>>> > > >>>> > > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Marko Rodriguez >>>> <okramma...@gmail.com> >>>> > > wrote: >>>> > > >>>> > > > Hi, >>>> > > > >>>> > > > See https://github.com/haifengl/unicorn >>>> > > > >>>> > > > They say they support a "Gremlin-like API." It would be >>> really >>>> cool if >>>> > > > they just implemented TinkerPop's Graph API. Perhaps >>> someone >>>> feels like >>>> > > > creating a ticket at their main repo explaining how to >>> go about >>>> > > supporting >>>> > > > TinkerPop? Or, even better, providing them a PR! >>>> > > > >>>> > > > https://github.com/adplabs/unicorn >>>> > > > >>>> > > > Take care, >>>> > > > Marko. >>>> > > > >>>> > > > <http://markorodriguez.com> >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>
