Why does it have to be a graph at all? Maybe getting a traversal from a graph is the wrong concept and that's why it perplexes you so. We're connecting to a server that can contain one or more graphs. The traversal should probably come off the connection or be standalone. Maybe the traversal takes a graph.
Robert Dale On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 3:01 PM Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote: > I've never been quite settled on how to connect to remote graphs. For a > while we had RemoteGraph but that wasn't useful really because it was > largely non-functional, as you really just needed a remote configured > TraversalSource - so we deprecated that. TraversalSource.withRemote() is > fine, but you can't get to it without a Graph implementation to create the > TraversalSource in the first place. For that we started to use EmptyGraph, > which works, but is a bit confusing, but less confusing than using say, > TinkerGraph, JanusGraph, etc. > > So, how do we nicely create a TraversalSource, that is meant to call > withRemote()? > > We could create a new Graph implementation that's like EmptyGraph, called > ReferenceGraph, which would behave in the same fashion, but at least it > sorta fits because remoting only returns "Reference" elements. I suppose > ReferenceGraph is somewhere in between EmptyGraph and RemoteGraph in terms > of functionality so maybe it makes more sense usability wise than the > extremes of the other two? I wonder if ReferenceGraph is even a Graph > instance?? maybe it just has a single static method like: > > g = ReferenceGraph.traversal(conf) > > where traversal() constructs a GraphTraversalSource and proxies calls to > withRemote()? Not sure what happens to DSLs though...that might be trouble. > > Anyway, it's a DISCUSS - so let's discuss............. >
