Hi,
I’m not following this PR too closely so what I might be saying is a already
known/argued against/etc.
1. I think we should go with Robert Dale’s proposal of int32, int64,
Vertex, uuid, etc. instead of Java class names.
2. In Java we then have a Map<String,Class> for typecasting accordingly.
3. This would make GraphSON 2.0 perfect for Bytecode serialization in
TINKERPOP-1278.
4. I think that if a Vertex, Edge, etc. doesn’t have properties, outV,
etc. then don’t even have those fields in the representation.
5. Most of the serialization back and forth will be ReferenceXXX
elements and thus, don’t create more Maps/lists for no reason. — less chars.
For me, my interests with this work is all about a language agnostic way of
sending Gremlin traversal bytecode between different languages. This work is
exactly what I am looking for.
Thanks,
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
> On Jul 9, 2016, at 9:48 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> With all the work on GLVs and the recent work on GraphSON 2.0, I think it's
> important that we have a solid, efficient, programming language neutral,
> lossless serialization format. Right now that format is GraphSON and it
> works for that purpose (ever more so with 2.0). Given some discussion on
> the GraphSON 2.0 PR driven a bit by Robert Dale:
>
> https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/351#issuecomment-231157389
>
> I wonder if we shouldn't consider another IO format that has Gremlin
> Server/GLVs in mind. At this point I'm not suggesting anything specific -
> I'm just hanging the idea out for further discussion and brain storming.
> Thoughts?
