+1 I'd like to review it. Thanks, Stephen. On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 4:03 AM Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We've had many discussion on this list about what TP4 will be. We've > migrated a number of those ideas to the "future" scratchpad[1]. We've even > introduced a number of concepts to TP3 which will help form the basis for > TP4, like with() for provider specific instructions and Jorge's neat new > work on the binary serialization format[2] which looks really promising. > There have been numerous blog posts that created a lot of the thinking for > what TP4 should be about as well[3][4]. > > Parallel to the TP4 design strategy is the position TinkerPop takes in the > graph community. We want that position clear for users so that they are > aware of the benefits they gain by considering TinkerPop-enabled systems. > We want that position clear to graph providers, so that they can feel > confident that fully leveraging/supporting TinkerPop is in their best > interest and yields them the greatest flexibility/capability in building > their offering. Finally, we want this position clear for ourselves so that > we can use it to help guide TP4 decision making along those lines. Months > ago, I conveyed my thoughts on our positioning informally on our mailing > lists[5]. > > The problem here is that these thoughts and works are spread unevenly > across a lot of different places. Marko recently set to work with > collaboration from me to help drag all of these things together into a > single coherent document. This document explains the history of the > TinkerPop project in relation to its lore (never previously unified or > fully explained) and describes the vision for TP4 using that background > context. > > There are no timelines for TP4 at the moment save for perhaps a starting > date in the middle of 2019 somewhere...hard to say when such development > would end obviously and I wouldn't venture to guess. The document does not > yet address compatibility which I think should be rectified - going to > suggest that to Marko today. I think forward/backward compatibility seems > achievable given bytecode i.e. it's just translating TP3 bytecode to TP4 > bytecode (or the reverse). I'd like to keep compatibility forefront in our > minds to try to make adoption and transition as smooth as possible. > > At this point, we would be interested in feedback that could be > incorporated into the document from the community. The dev list strips > attachments and I don't really want to make this document widely released > yet (i.e. put it on the general internet) so if you are interested in > reviewing a copy, please just reply to this thread and I will share the PDF > with you. Please continue to discuss feedback here on this thread though. > > > [1] http://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/current/dev/future/ > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP-1942 > [3] https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/the-von-gremlin-architecture > [4] > > https://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/a-gremlin-implementation-of-the-gremlin-traversal-machine > [5] https://groups.google.com/d/msg/gremlin-users/czzHhYsbEmg/htgJGF4iBAAJ >
