> 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 <emman...@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.s...@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 <dav...@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@lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> hibernate-dev mailing list >> hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
