Re: [hibernate-dev] [OGM] Bolt vs Rest for Neo4j

On Fri 2016-08-26 11:32, Gunnar Morling wrote: > > How much additional work would it be to keep the "old" rest in a legacy > module separated from the pure one? > > Does it even make sense? > > As a user, when would I prefer which one over the other? If Bolt is the > general recommendation, I'd limit efforts on this one. It seems to be one > of those knobs I'd prevent the user from having to set if possible. The one I can think of is not being able to open custom ports

> > > Can you write a blog post with a small poll to know if anyone complains > > about dropping REST > > +1. Would be nice to get some feedback. > > > > 2016-08-26 10:10 GMT+02:00 Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt;: > > > Can you write a blog post with a small poll to know if anyone complains > > about dropping REST. Let's have it on for a week and make a decision. If > > nothing conclusive comes out, let's drop it. > > > > On Fri 2016-08-26 8:27, Davide D'Alto wrote: > > > > Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to keep the > > "old" rest in a legacy module > > > > > > It would still require to be maintained, I would prefer not to have it > > > unless there is a specific use case for it > > > > > > >. Does Bolt run atop HTTP as I remember it > > > > > > I don't think so, it's a binary protocol that connects to a port using > > sockets. > > > > > > > PS: it's a bit sad that we implement something (rest remote) and it's > > ready and by lack of release it is replaced and remove it without seeing > > the light of day. Release often. > > > > > > That's actually a bad call from my side, I wanted to release with the > > > new ORM and it took longer than expected to merge the PR. > > > > > > Davide > > > > > > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:53 AM, Emmanuel Bernard > > > <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org&gt; wrote: > > > > Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to keep the > > "old" rest in a legacy module separated from the pure one? > > > > Does it even make sense? > > > > > > > > I'm fine with the removal and focus on bolt on a general basis. Does > > Bolt run atop HTTP as I remember it ? Or is that specific ? If the later > > some might want to keep using rest. > > > > > > > > Emmanuel > > > > > > > > PS: it's a bit sad that we implement something (rest remote) and it's > > ready and by lack of release it is replaced and remove it without seeing > > the light of day. Release often. > > > > > > > >> On 22 août 2016, at 22:25, Guillaume Smet <guillaume.smet(a)gmail.com&gt; > > wrote: > > > >> > > > >> Hi Davide, > > > >> > > > >> I wanted to add 2 things: > > > >> - Neo4j remote with Rest has not been released yet; > > > >> - if we remove the Rest protocol, remote Neo4j will only be supported > > with > > > >> Neo4j >= 3 > > > >> > > > >> Personally I'm +1 to only support remote Neo4j with Bolt. Maintaining > > one > > > >> more dialect/protocol just to provide remote for Neo4j < 3 does not > > sound > > > >> like a good tradeoff to me. > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Guillaume > > > >> > > > >>> On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 8:11 PM, Davide D'Alto <davide(a)hibernate.org&gt; > > wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> Hello, > > > >>> at the moment in OGM we connect remotely using the Rest API. > > > >>> The reason is that when I created the dialect the new Bolt[1] > > protocol > > > >>> wasn't available. > > > >>> > > > >>> I've now finished implementing the dialect so that it uses the Bolt > > > >>> protocol, there is a lot of duplication since it is very similar to > > > >>> the approach I used for Rest. > > > >>> > > > >>> I worked for a while trying to improve the code but I started to > > > >>> wonder if it might be really helpful to provide two ways to connect > > > >>> remotely with an increase in complexity of the code (more interfaces > > > >>> mainly with some additional classes). > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm now of the idea that we could remove the dialect thata uses Rest > > > >>> and only keep the one that uses Bolt (as suggested by Giulliame in an > > > >>> old chat on hipchat). > > > >>> > > > >>> This will simplify the code and we can always add it back if the need > > > >>> arise or somebody asks. > > > >>> Note that the Bolt protocol is the suggested one to use for Neo4j > > > >>> since it promises better performance. > > > >>> It will also allow us to remove some dependencies required for the > > rest > > > >>> client. > > > >>> > > > >>> Please, let me know if you think there is value in keeping both > > > >>> approaches, otherwise I'm going to send a PR that removes the remote > > > >>> one. > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks, > > > >>> Davide > > > >>> > > > >>> [1] https://dzone.com/articles/introducing-bolt-neo4js- > > > >>> upcoming-binary-protocol-p > > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > > >>> hibernate-dev mailing list > > > >>> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > >> hibernate-dev mailing list > > > >> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > _______________________________________________ > > hibernate-dev mailing list > > hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev