Here's the PR for withEmbedded(Graph)
https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/1322
I opted to leave this method out of GLVs since there is no real "embedded
graph" to provide there. So, a bit inconsistent, but it seems better than
creating the idea that it's possible to do embedded connections with GLVs
off the JVM.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 7:22 AM Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
