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

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

    Details

    • Type: Improvement
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: Major
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 3.2.2
    • Fix Version/s: 3.2.4
    • Component/s: process
    • Labels:
      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.

        Activity

        Hide
        okram Marko A. Rodriguez added a comment -

        Note that this work should also address HasContainer.makeHasContainers where AndP-predicate are split apart into individual HasContainers. This is hacky and bad.

        Show
        okram Marko A. Rodriguez added a comment - Note that this work should also address HasContainer.makeHasContainers where AndP -predicate are split apart into individual HasContainers . This is hacky and bad.

          People

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

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Development