Hi,
> Currently users can send either bytecode or groovy scripts to be executed
> on the server. I'm saying we replace "groovy scripts evaluation" with
> "gremlin groovy traversal execution”.
I concur. But why even send Gremlin-Groovy traversals? Just send bytecode.
- assuming we can get rid of lambdas
> In TP3, it's possible for the user to submit to the script engine something
> like "Thread.sleep(4000)" that will be executed inside a sandboxed vm.
> I'm proposing we get rid of this approach in TP4 and, as gremlin groovy
> script are still useful (for example, you can store a bunch of traversals
> to execute in a text file), we replace it with a language recognition
> engine that will parse what is sent and evaluate it, using a restricted
> grammar set. The variant for gremlin strings would still be groovy/java but
> the user won't be able to submit arbitrary groovy instructions.
Understood. Again, I would make this super simple by just sending bytecode.
One thing I’m pushing for is a “reference implementation server.” No more
monolithic GremlinServer. The reference server has the following features:
- Sits on a socket waiting for bytecode.
- Executes bytecode and returns traversers.
- For distributed processors, can send traversers back to client from
any machine in the cluster.
From this reference server, providers can extend it as they see fit. Perhaps
someone wants to execute Groovy scripts!
- ScriptEngineStrategy
- ScriptEngineFlatMap
- [ex:script,groovy,Thread.sleep(1000)]
In other words, our reference implementation server is bare bones, rock solid,
speedy, and safe. How the pieces are reassembled by the provider is up to them.
Thoughts?,
Marko.
http://rredux.com <http://rredux.com/>
