Let's try to use an option that doesn't require an account (e.g. Zoom, Microsoft Teams, Google Meet). Cole, as a member of the PMC, do you mind creating/managing the meeting for this open discussion? My preferred times are anything between 8AM-8PM PT (16:00-04:00 UTC), but I have some flexibility and can extend beyond those hours. What time works best for everyone else?
On Fri, Nov 21, 2025 at 5:34 AM Andrii Lomakin via dev < [email protected]> wrote: > +Vladislav Grinin <[email protected]> upon his request. > > Vladislav is working on TinkerPop LDBC benchmarks that we plan to release > in the near future. > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 8:40 PM Ken Hu <[email protected]> wrote: > > > In TinkerPop 4.x, we're going to have more options since the server is > > likely to host more endpoints (e.g. status). This opens up new > > possibilities with how the GLVs can interact with the server and in > > particular with different providers/vendors. I think we should have an > open > > discussion on these topics that you have brought up on the dev list > > recently. Maybe we can schedule an open meeting for the first week of Dec > > (to avoid the Thanksgiving holiday)? > > > > If anyone is interested in discussing some of these items then please > reply > > to this thread. We can decide on a time that works for everyone in > several > > days after anyone that is interested gets a chance to say so. > > > > On Thu, Nov 20, 2025 at 9:05 AM Andrii Lomakin > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Good day. > > > Let me provide one more argument. > > > > > > Not so long I read the book 'differentiate or die' that is important > > point > > > for vendors as with tool that promotes unification by default they > can't > > > differentiate themselves so efficiently and prefer tools that promotes > > > differentiation. > > > > > > I think that is valuable point. > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Nov 2025, 14:53 Andrii Lomakin, < > [email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Good day. > > > > I understand that it contradicts current 4.x goal. > > > > > > > > To decide I propose to check how many vendors can practically work > > > without > > > > their dependencies added , I also propose to take into account impact > > of > > > > each vendor on infrastructure. I have a feeling that feature rich > > vendors > > > > can't work without their dependencies added. > > > > > > > > > > > > As one more argument JDBC users work in this way all the time and > don't > > > > see any issues with this approach. > > > > > > > > On Wed, 19 Nov 2025, 19:49 Andrii Lomakin, < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Good day, > > > >> > > > >> As Ken Hu correctly noted in a separate thread, the fact that users > > > >> sometimes ignore vendor libraries is leading to confusion. > > > >> > > > >> I propose changing how users obtain a RemoteGraphTraversal instance. > > > >> Instead of allowing direct creation of the instance, I suggest > using a > > > >> method similar to RemoteGraphTraversalManager.connect(url, name, > > > password). > > > >> This new approach would enforce registration of the provider library > > by > > > >> throwing an exception if it is missing. > > > >> > > > >> I recognize that this proposal may be controversial, but I believe > it > > is > > > >> worth considering as a solution to the long-lasting issue. > > > >> > > > >> Looking forward to reading your opinions. > > > >> YouTrackDB development lead, > > > >> Andrii Lomakin. > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >
