I didn't want to go to "one-and-only" talk, but I was going to go there assuming folks were accepting of this proposal. I'd likely want to take that discussion to gremlin-users as well. I'm wondering how many folks unsafely do a multi-graph transaction in a single request.
On Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matt Frantz <matthew.h.fra...@gmail.com> wrote: > It would seem that we want a sort of "strict" mode where the client must > declare the (one-and-only?) graph that they want to use. That way, we > could deprecate support for the server-side graph names, and raise an > exception if strict mode is enabled. It becomes sort of an "import" > feature from the client standpoint, i.e. they must import a graph to use > it. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:32 PM, Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > The current "tranaction manager" in Gremlin Server is just like Rexster's > > and it's not very smart. It makes no distinction about what graphs were > > actually affected when it issues its auto-commits/rollbacks at the end > of a > > sessionless request. For those with a number of different Graph > instances > > configured in Gremlin Server, that's a lot of extra empty commits if the > > intent is to just mutate a single graph in the set. I'm not sure what > that > > time amounts to, but it seems sensible that if we could only commit when > > needed then it would be better than lots of extra commits for nothing. > > > > As it so happens we have the rebindings feature (wonder why didn't call > > that "alias") in Gremlin Server: > > > > http://tinkerpop.incubator.apache.org/docs/3.0.1-incubating/#_rebinding > > > > So we could use that to tell the transaction manager which graph the user > > is working with and thus allow the correct commit on the right graph. If > > no rebindings are supplied, I guess we could stick with the current > model. > > > > It is a potentially breaking change to people already using rebindings > only > > in the sense that if they have two graphs in Gremlin Server, then chose > to > > use a rebind for one, but then issued scripts that directly referenced > the > > other, obviously, under this new model, the transaction would be > > uncommitted on the direct reference - they would have to alter the code > to > > rebind both. > > > > Generally speaking, I think we want to encourage rebinding as a pattern > as > > it makes code more flexible as your scripts don't get bound to the name > of > > the graph in Gremlin Server - they can be bound to a more general alias. > > So this change would perhaps lead folks in this direction. > > > > Anyone against using rebindings in that fashion? > > >
