> In the interest of ASF trademarks, I would suggest it be called "apache/tinkerpop" with "Gremlin" naming reserved for operators and the like, as it is now with GremlinOperator. I think this makes sense because it is connecting to TinkerPop-enabled systems via Gremlin. I would similarly suggest that references to "Apache Gremlin" and the like become "Apache TinkerPop".
That's an interesting one - indeed TinkerPop is the PMC/ Framework - Gremlin is the language. I am not sure we are actually using TinkerPop here - because TinkerPop is the whole framework - Ahmad, can you explain the relation there - are those other systems simply implement Gremlin as language or do they use TinkerPop for something / as a backend? Because that's a bit of a conceptual difference here. For example in the provider we are importing https://pypi.org/project/gremlinpython not "tinkerpop" - and it also does not have tinkerpop as dependency. I wonder if Gremlin is also a Trademark by Apache ? Maybe we should ask tinkerpop PMC what they think about it? J. On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 4:55 PM Stephen Mallette <spmalle...@apache.org> wrote: > > > On 2025/02/26 12:38:02 Jarek Potiuk wrote: > > Yeah . `apache/gremlin" seems like a better option then. Does anyone have > > anything against it? > > In the interest of ASF trademarks, I would suggest it be called > "apache/tinkerpop" with "Gremlin" naming reserved for operators and the > like, as it is now with GremlinOperator. I think this makes sense because > it is connecting to TinkerPop-enabled systems via Gremlin. I would > similarly suggest that references to "Apache Gremlin" and the like become > "Apache TinkerPop". > > > I think we are pretty happy with accepting "other > > apache" projects as providers, so I see no issue with Gremlin - knowing > > that we can always reach out to our friendly Apache Community in case of > > any issues. So - unless we do not hear any "opposition" in a few days, I > > think it would make sense if you start `[LAZY CONSENSUS]` thread - > > without a need for `[VOTE]` thread. > > > > One thing though that I would love to have - is to also have an > integration > > test if possible (we had it with apache.kafka for example) - those are > > tests that could run **some** graphdb database locally (via > docker-compose) > > and run a very rudimentary checks against a "real" database, not a mocked > > call. That would make it more robust. > > > > More about integration tests, how to build, run, test them and integrate > > them in our CI can be found here: > > > https://github.com/apache/airflow/blob/main/contributing-docs/testing/integration_tests.rst > > - happy to help if you are stuck with it. > > > > J. > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 26, 2025 at 1:25 PM Ahmad Farhan <ahmad.farhan9...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > I pushed changes to move the provider into the “apache” directory. > After > > > updating the class references across the project, I re-tested and all > tests > > > passed. > > > > > > Regarding the use of Gremlin (or another graph query language like > Cypher > > > and SPARQL) for a common package approach, here are my thoughts on the > pros > > > and cons: > > > > > > pros (I can see only one): > > > > > > - Gremlin has been widely adopted by different cloud vendors (e.g. > Azure > > > Cosmos DB with Apache Gremlin and AWS Neptune) as well as in > self-hosted > > > environments. > > > > > > cons: > > > > > > - Gremlin, Cypher (native for Neo4j) and SPARQL each have their own > > > drivers for executing queries. > > > - To achieve a common abstraction, a wrapper around each driver > would be > > > required. Each driver has its own connection parameters, underlying > > > protocols, and may need method overrides for compatibility with > > > different > > > Python versions. > > > - Not all vendors support every query language; for instance, > Gremlin > > > for Neo4j has been deprecated in recent releases, while Cosmos DB > does > > > not > > > support Cypher or SPARQL. > > > > > > While it would be ideal to have a unified graph query language and > driver > > > that works seamlessly across different vendors, such a solution does > not > > > exist at the moment. In my opinion, implementing provider-specific > > > solutions for each query language (Gremlin, Cypher, SPARQL) is more > > > realistic and practical given the current landscape. > > > > > > Happy to discuss further or answer any questions! > > > > > > Farhan > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 11:33 AM Ahmad Farhan < > ahmad.farhan9...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I have worked with two different graph database vendors—Azure Cosmos > DB > > > > and Neo4j. During our migration to Neo4j, we discovered that using > the > > > > Gremlin language wasn’t possible; we were forced to rewrite all our > > > queries > > > > into Cypher, which is the native language for Neo4j and, in my > > > experience, > > > > much simpler for querying. > > > > > > > > This situation highlights a key challenge for a common abstraction: > the > > > > underlying query languages and connection/authentication mechanisms > vary > > > > significantly. Gremlin is not only different from Cypher in syntax > but is > > > > also deprecated for Neo4j (see > > > > https://tinkerpop.apache.org/docs/3.7.3/reference/#neo4j-gremlin). > > > > > > > > The question would be how can the common approach accommodate these > > > > different query languages? > > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 7:36 PM Jarek Potiuk <ja...@potiuk.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Without deep looking at the code I love the idea - it's very > similar to > > > >> what we have for common.sql and common.io - and soon > common.messaging > > > - I > > > >> also - long time ago - suggested common.dataframe that someone could > > > >> submit > > > >> using Apache Ibis: > > > >> https://lists.apache.org/thread/qx3yh6h0l6jb0kh3fz9q95b3x5b4001l - > > > >> similarly I believe there was an idea about common.llm ... > > > >> > > > >> I think the "common" pattern is a great one for Airflow, to build > on top > > > >> of > > > >> "other giants" who build those common abstractions that you can > easily > > > >> switch between different implementations of various data access > layers. > > > >> > > > >> My suggestion and question - would be however (not very strong on > it, I > > > >> would love to hear what others think, I know it's been somewhat > > > >> contentious > > > >> when I started the ibis discussion) - would be to make it > > > "common.graph", > > > >> "common.dataframe" - instead of "apache.gremlin" or "apache.ibis" - > just > > > >> to > > > >> stress that those are not implementations of particular service but > > > >> opinionated choice of particular technology to do "common" > operations. > > > >> This > > > >> is what essentially "common.io" is . - it should be named "fsspec" > > > >> provider > > > >> if we were to name it by the "library" that implemented it. > > > >> > > > >> J. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Fri, Feb 21, 2025 at 8:22 PM Ahmad Farhan < > > > ahmad.farhan9...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Hi Everyone, > > > >> > > > > >> > I’ve created a draft PR ( > https://github.com/apache/airflow/pull/46977 > > > ) > > > >> to > > > >> > introduce and discuss a new provider for using Gremlin—the graph > > > >> traversal > > > >> > language of Apache TinkerPop (more details here: > > > >> > https://tinkerpop.apache.org/gremlin.html). Gremlin is supported > by > > > >> > various > > > >> > graph database vendors such as Azure Cosmos DB and Amazon Neptune. > > > >> > Previously, I had to develop a custom hook to query data from > Azure > > > >> Cosmos > > > >> > DB using Apache Gremlin. > > > >> > > > > >> > I managed to create a provider and run it locally on the main > branch. > > > >> > However, I ran into the BaseHook issue ( > > > >> > https://github.com/apache/airflow/issues/45233) on that branch, > so I > > > >> ended > > > >> > up testing it fully on the v2-10-test branch. The PR should be > > > complete, > > > >> > but I’ve kept it as a draft for now while we discuss the provider. > > > >> > > > > >> > I’m a new contributor, so I’m especially eager to hear your > feedback. > > > >> > Comments on the PR is very welcome, and please feel free to reach > out > > > >> with > > > >> > any questions via email or Slack. > > > >> > > > > >> > Thanks, > > > >> > Ahmad Farhan > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@airflow.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@airflow.apache.org > >
