Re: [DISCUSS] New IO format for GLVs/Gremlin Server

Responding to Marko and Kevin... Marko wrote: > SIDENOTE: This serves as a foundation for when we move to GraphSON 2.0. In > terms of numbers, I think, unfortunately, we have to stick with int32, int64, > float, double, etc. given graph database providers and their type systems. > Its not

Re: [DISCUSS] New IO format for GLVs/Gremlin Server

On 2016-07-09 16:48 (+0100), Stephen Mallette wrote: > With all the work on GLVs and the recent work on GraphSON 2.0, I think it's > important that we have a solid, efficient, programming language neutral, > lossless serialization format. Right now that format is GraphSON

Re: [DISCUSS] New IO format for GLVs/Gremlin Server

Hello, > How would you define that format in a general way ? Like what I did when > saying > "- untyped : value > - typed : {"@type", "typeName", "value" : value}" > > Just trying your point better. > Also what are the downsides you see with the format suggested above ? This makes sense to

Re: [DISCUSS] New IO format for GLVs/Gremlin Server

On 2016-07-15 15:52 (+0100), "gallardo.kev...@gmail.com" wrote: > > > On 2016-07-15 14:44 (+0100), Robert Dale wrote: > > It looks to me like a self-inflicted problem because the things that > > are typed are already native to json so it's

Re: [DISCUSS] New IO format for GLVs/Gremlin Server

On 2016-07-15 16:07 (+0100), "gallardo.kev...@gmail.com" wrote: > > > On 2016-07-15 15:52 (+0100), > "gallardo.kev...@gmail.com" wrote: > > > > > > On 2016-07-15 14:44 (+0100), Robert Dale wrote: > > > It looks to

Re: [DISCUSS] New IO format for GLVs/Gremlin Server

It looks to me like a self-inflicted problem because the things that are typed are already native to json so it's redundant. And to go a step further, I wouldn't consider the types to be 'correct' because everything that is a HashMap is really a Vertex, Edge, or Property. On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at