Well, I have to say I really like Map. In almost all of our code by the time we
are ready to create a vertex we have the properties already in a map. Data for
the most part are not captured by humans typing gremlin but by machines and
they store key value pairs in a Map.
Cheers
Pieter
Excerpts from Marko Rodriguez's message of September 28, 2016 7:18 :
Hi,
Right now we have:
addV().property(a,b).property(c,d,e,f)
The second property() call creates a c=d vertex property with e=f meta-property.
We could do this:
addV(a,b,c,d).property(c).property(e,f)
That is, addV() has a Object[]… arg. However, seems to be the same length of
characters. Though, without meta-properties:
addV().property(‘a’,b’).property(‘c’,’d’)
…becomes:
addV(‘a’,’b’,’c’,’d’)
I don’t really like Map as that is not a type we use anywhere else…
Marko.
http://markorodriguez.com
On Sep 28, 2016, at 10:41 AM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote:
Matthias re-opened that issue now looking to see g.addV(Map) given my
reasoning for closing.
On Tue, Sep 20, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Anyone interested in seeing a Graph.addVertex(Map) overload?
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1174
I don't imagine there would be any change to addV() in this case. I'm
thinking that we wouldn't likely use this method internally and so it would
more be something for user convenience, in which case, it seems to
encourage more use of the Graph API which we're typically trying to do less
of.
