Hello, Yes. It should develop on its own.
Marko. http://markorodriguez.com > On Aug 15, 2017, at 7:25 AM, Daniel Kuppitz <[email protected]> wrote: > > I share all your concerns. I'd rather like to see it develop as a separate > project. > > Furthermore, I don't know the author, but his GitHub contribution activity > information suggests that he's not going to maintain the code. > > Cheers, > Daniel > > > On Tue, Aug 15, 2017 at 5:33 AM, Stephen Mallette <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Some of you may have noticed this PR: >> >> https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/693 >> >> It is for an object graph mapper. It is fairly large and, at a glance, a >> nicely developed body of work (docs, tests, javadoc, etc). As the author >> didn't bring this up on the dev list before issuing the PR, I'm unsure of >> their intentions, but I assume they would like gremlin-objects to be the >> standard OGM for TinkerPop. >> >> Without drilling too deeply, my immediate concerns with accepting this into >> the code base: >> >> 1. It promotes use of a method of development that seems in competition to >> the Traversal API rather than one that complements it. For example, it adds >> a new Query object and uses Structure API semantics. It also adds new >> interfaces for providers to implement if they want to support this feature. >> 2. I'm not clear on how well this approach would support remote traversals >> especially since we discourage Elements from being returned with >> properties. >> 3. The author admitted that this is a Java only solution. Given the size >> and complexity of this PR I'd be concerned about trying to implement it >> across languages. Our general design goal has been to keep GLVs simple. >> Recall again - elements in GLVs don't hold properties at all - it's not >> even an option. >> 4.I tend to see DSLs and OGMs linked a bit in terms of what they do. DSLs >> are new - just one version old. I'd like to seem them develop a bit longer >> and get some feedback on usage to see how they address users problems for >> writing Gremlin in their domains. >> 5. If we accept this, we are saying that this approach to OGM (and there >> have been a number of them, Ferma, Peapod, Frames, etc.) is the "right" way >> and as of right now I'm not sure I'm willing to get behind that. I tend to >> think there are many ways to OGM and that different people will like >> different ways - this is largely the reason why we tend not to focus our >> development in this area. >> >> I think I'd like to see gremlin-objects develop on its own for a while >> separately, build its own community following, and work out whatever rough >> edges it may have. TinkerPop would add it to the tool listing on the home >> page and promote it as an option for those looking for an OGM. We've had >> this recommendation before to other pull requests and project suggestions >> and I think it tends to work out well for all parties. >> >> For those reading this not familiar with our processes, this is just my >> opinion on how we should move forward. Others may not feel this way. Please >> feel free to share your thoughts. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Stephen >>
