spmallette commented on code in PR #3211: URL: https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/3211#discussion_r2376885126
########## gremlin-core/src/main/java/org/apache/tinkerpop/gremlin/process/traversal/Type.java: ########## @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +/* + * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one + * or more contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file + * distributed with this work for additional information + * regarding copyright ownership. The ASF licenses this file + * to you under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the + * "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance + * with the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at + * + * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 + * + * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, + * software distributed under the License is distributed on an + * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY + * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the + * specific language governing permissions and limitations + * under the License. + */ +package org.apache.tinkerpop.gremlin.process.traversal; + +import java.util.Map; +import java.util.Optional; +import java.util.concurrent.ConcurrentHashMap; + +/** + * {@code Type} is a {@code BiPredicate} that determines whether the first argument is a type of the second argument. + * + */ +public enum Type implements PBiPredicate<Object, Object> { Review Comment: I think [my comment](https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/3207/files#r2352474590) still stands from the proposal. I still think `Type` should be better constrained by that `<Object, Object>` and that `<Object, Class<?>>` is more agreeable. Doing so would also get rid of the catch-all `else { return false }` and that check for `GType.NULL`: ```java typeOf { @Override public boolean test(final Object first, final Class<?> second) { if (first == null) return false; return secondClass.isAssignableFrom(first.getClass()); } }; ``` This way, it can never be called other than how it is intended. In `P` you already have the types constrained to multiple `typeOf` overloads. Why expand them back to the `Type` enum when you can just coerce them each to `Class<?>` by moving that logic I removed above back to those specific `P` overloads? Also, you'd catch `GlobalTypeCache` failures at traversal construction time with that logic in `P` rather than at runtime which seems more advantageous to me. Do we lose something by getting more strict with the types for the `Type` enum? As a separate point, are we making a mistake using `Type` for the name of this enum? We have `Type` and `GType` and at some point in the future we will have a schema. "Type" is such a great word to save for when we really need it. We currently have `Contains`, `Compare` , and the unfortunately named `Text`. The first two are verbs which actively define what `P` is doing - containing or comparing. Maybe there's a verb form that would be better than `Type`? Maybe we call the enum `InstanceOf` rather than `Type`- that's pretty normal and understood? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
