Uploaded image for project: 'TinkerPop'
  1. TinkerPop
  2. TINKERPOP-1482

has(x).has(y) chains should be has(x.and(y))

VotersWatch issueWatchersLinkCloneUpdate Comment AuthorReplace String in CommentUpdate Comment VisibilityDelete Comments
    XMLWordPrintableJSON

Details

    • Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • 3.2.2
    • 3.2.4
    • process
    • None

    Description

      Lots of work has been done to inline filters for 3.2.3. A final application should be to inline has.has into has(x.and). If this is done, providers may have significant breaking changes as they will need to search HasContainers beyond P.eq() to walking an and/or-tree. However, the benefit of this grouping is two fold:

      1. Its a clean, consistent composition.
      2. It reduces the number of HasContainers and HasSteps in areas where provider "fold-ins" are not being used.

      Attachments

        Activity

          This comment will be Viewable by All Users Viewable by All Users
          Cancel

          People

            okram Marko A. Rodriguez
            okram Marko A. Rodriguez
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            1 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Slack

                Issue deployment