It's interesting - we never actually went forward promoting withGraph() at
all. I seem to recall that we might have expected to promote it in full in
3.5.0, but we've been delayed a bit in that version's development so it's
been forgotten. :/ Personally, i don't see a problem with changing the
documentation for 3.4.9 to promote withEmbedded(). No code will break as
both withGraph() and Graph.traversal() will still be around.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 4:37 AM Jorge Bay Gondra <jorgebaygon...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> I think naming it withEmbedded() can help users understand the difference
> between the two modes (I remember it took me a while to grasp it).
>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:51 PM Kelvin Lawrence <gfx...@me.com.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> > I think this makes good sense and improves the naming consistency.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kelvin
> >
> > On 2020/08/29 13:28:12, Stephen Mallette <s...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > In 3.3.5 we introduced a more unified method to construct "g":>
> > >
> > > gremlin> g = traversal().withGraph(TinkerFactory.createModern())>
> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[tinkergraph[vertices:6 edges:6], standard]>
> > > gremlin> g = traversal().withRemote('conf/remote-graph.properties')>
> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> > > gremlin> g =>
> > > traversal().withRemote(DriverRemoteConnection.using('localhost',8182))>
> > > ==>graphtraversalsource[emptygraph[empty], standard]>
> > >
> > >
> >
> https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.4.8/upgrade/#_anonymoustraversalsource
> >
> >
> > >
> > > I think that approach has been really helpful. Of course, this morning
> > I>
> > > was thinking that withGraph(Graph) could be better named if we changed
> > it>
> > > to withEmbedded(Graph) which would then make it explicit that there are
> > two>
> > > modes of operation at play here in TinkerPop when you go to write your>
> > > Gremlin with "g".>
> > >
> > > You can (1) have a "embedded" graph for which you must have a local>
> > > instance available or (2) a "remote" graph for which you need a
> > connection.>
> > >
> > > I was thinking we could deprecate withGraph() for withEmbedded() in
> > 3.4.9>
> > > and drop withGraph() in 3.5.0. Anyone have any thoughts on that
> matter?>
> > >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kelvin
> >
> > Kelvin R. Lawrence
> > Round Rock, Texas, U.S.A.
> > http://www.kelvinlawrence.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
