8:11 p.m.
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-protoc...
10:25 p.m.
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> 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
8:53 a.m.
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> 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>
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
9:27 a.m.
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> 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>
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> 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
10:10 a.m.
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> 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>
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> 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
11:32 a.m.
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.
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>:
> 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> 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>
> 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>
> 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
>
1:35 p.m.
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>:
> 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> 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>
> 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>
> 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
>
2:48 p.m.
On 26 August 2016 at 12:35, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
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
In similar situations, I sometimes exposed other services over port 80 ..
/me ducks and runs..
>
> > 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>:
>
> > 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> 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>
> > 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>
> > 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
5:28 p.m.
I published an initial post on staging:
http://staging.in.relation.to/2016/08/26/should-we-drop-rest-for-neo4j/
I'm not sure how should I ask the user about it, let me know what you think.
Also, is there a way we prefer to generate poll for the website or I
can just rely on the comment?
This one looks nice: http://www.poll-maker.com/
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
On 26 August 2016 at 12:35, Emmanuel Bernard
<emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> 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
In similar situations, I sometimes exposed other services over port 80 ..
/me ducks and runs..
>
>>
>> > 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>:
>>
>> > 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> 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>
>> > 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>
>> > 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
_______________________________________________
hibernate-dev mailing list
hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
5:41 p.m.
On 26 August 2016 at 16:28, Davide D'Alto <daltodavide(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I published an initial post on staging:
http://staging.in.relation.to/2016/08/26/should-we-drop-rest-for-neo4j/
I'm not sure how should I ask the user about it, let me know what you think.
Also, is there a way we prefer to generate poll for the website or I
can just rely on the comment?
Maybe make a poll on twitter?
https://blog.twitter.com/2015/introducing-twitter-polls
This one looks nice: http://www.poll-maker.com/
On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Sanne Grinovero <sanne(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
> On 26 August 2016 at 12:35, Emmanuel Bernard <emmanuel(a)hibernate.org> wrote:
>> 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
>
> In similar situations, I sometimes exposed other services over port 80 ..
> /me ducks and runs..
>
>>
>>>
>>> > 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>:
>>>
>>> > 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> 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>
>>> > 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>
>>> > 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> hibernate-dev mailing list
> hibernate-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
2800
days inactive
2804
days old
9 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Davide D'Alto -
Davide D'Alto -
Emmanuel Bernard -
Guillaume Smet -
Gunnar Morling -
Sanne Grinovero