[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-701?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14566814#comment-14566814
]
Ran Magen commented on TINKERPOP3-701:
--------------------------------------
I'd personally go with an exception. I think aborting a mutation isn't
something that's supposed to happen on a regular basis. Usually it will
probably be an indication of a bug in your code or data. Also we need to
somehow propagate the details of the failure, something an exception will
easily handle..
> Improving Mutating Interface
> ----------------------------
>
> Key: TINKERPOP3-701
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-701
> Project: TinkerPop 3
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: process
> Reporter: Ran Magen
> Priority: Critical
>
> This was discussed in the mailing list. Ill quote the relevant parts:
> We want to implement a validation strategy. Sort of like EventStrategy, but
> it will notify before a mutation, and will enable the user's validation code
> to cancel a mutation if it doesn't pass its checks. The problem is that there
> are no "before" callbacks for the Mutating interface.
> Stephen Mallette:
> i may have messed up the Mutating interface design a bit. looking at it now,
> i feel like it could be less coupled to the EventStrategy related features.
> I'll take a look at it to see if I can make it "better" before GA. I don't
> think my changes should affect vendors or the test suites, so if it turns out
> to be that way i'll give it a shot.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)
