- It seems redundant to nest a vertex or edge inside a type-value object and is inconsistent with a VertexProperty. - VertexProperty and (edge) Property are implicit types. I don't know if this is ok. Could they ever be used outside of their parents where they would need to be typed? - Edges: - is in/outVLabel new? Couldn't find it in the API or any examples of this. - why not make inV/outV have proper vertices with labels (to satisfy the case previous case) instead of just IDs? This would also be more consistent with the API.
Otherwise looks good! On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 12:05 PM, gallardo.kev...@gmail.com <gallardo.kev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 2016-07-15 16:25 (+0100), > "gallardo.kev...@gmail.com"<gallardo.kev...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On 2016-07-09 16:48 (+0100), 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? >> > >> >> Hey, so I'm trying to gather all infos we have here in order to prepare to >> move forward with the implem of GraphSON 2.0, here's what I come up with : >> >> Things we have : >> - Type format. >> - The structure in Jackson to implement our own type format. >> - All non native Graph types are typed (except the domain specific types). >> >> New things we need : >> - Types for domain specific objects. >> - Types for all numeric values. >> - Don't serialize empty fields (outV and stuff). >> >> Things we consider changing : >> - Type IDs convention. Before : Java simple class names. Now : starts with a >> "domain" like "gremlin" followed by the "type name", which is a lowercased >> type name (like "uuid", or "float", or "vertex"). Example : "gremlin:uuid". >> - Type format ? >> >> Am I missing something ? >> > Hey, > > So I've made a few changes in the code from the original GraphSON 2.0, with > the objectives described above, the code is still messy but I just thought > I'd share some samples to start getting into the work and gather some > feedback. > > In the example I've created a TinkerGraph with 2 vertices connected by an > edge. The graph is serialized as a TinkerGraph. > The samples are there : > https://gist.github.com/newkek/97da94342bc32e571cf4a0ba1018df60 > > Any feedback appreciated. -- Robert Dale
