From dev-return-25727-apmail-tinkerpop-dev-archive=tinkerpop.apache.org@tinkerpop.apache.org  Wed Sep  5 21:50:35 2018
Return-Path: <dev-return-25727-apmail-tinkerpop-dev-archive=tinkerpop.apache.org@tinkerpop.apache.org>
X-Original-To: apmail-tinkerpop-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Delivered-To: apmail-tinkerpop-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org
Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3])
	by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 47D8A1D775
	for <apmail-tinkerpop-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org>; Wed,  5 Sep 2018 21:50:35 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (qmail 99131 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2018 21:50:35 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-tinkerpop-dev-archive@tinkerpop.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99112 invoked by uid 500); 5 Sep 2018 21:50:35 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@tinkerpop.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@tinkerpop.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@tinkerpop.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@tinkerpop.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.tinkerpop.apache.org>
Reply-To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@tinkerpop.apache.org
Received: (qmail 99096 invoked by uid 99); 5 Sep 2018 21:50:34 -0000
Received: from git1-us-west.apache.org (HELO git1-us-west.apache.org) (140.211.11.23)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Sep 2018 21:50:34 +0000
Received: by git1-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at git1-us-west.apache.org, from userid 33)
	id 17223DFF32; Wed,  5 Sep 2018 21:50:34 +0000 (UTC)
From: redoz <git@git.apache.org>
To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org
Reply-To: dev@tinkerpop.apache.org
References: <git-pr-915-tinkerpop@git.apache.org>
In-Reply-To: <git-pr-915-tinkerpop@git.apache.org>
Subject: [GitHub] tinkerpop issue #915: Tinkerpop 1913-Followup
Content-Type: text/plain
Message-Id: <20180905215034.17223DFF32@git1-us-west.apache.org>
Date: Wed,  5 Sep 2018 21:50:34 +0000 (UTC)

Github user redoz commented on the issue:

    https://github.com/apache/tinkerpop/pull/915
  
    I wanted to see some progress on this, so I took a stab at rebasing and exposing the attribute collection on the `ResponseException` as well. You can find it here: https://github.com/redoz/tinkerpop/commit/e48c0af80873498e50a5383bdcf626e078018db5
    
    Is there a good reason for not exposing the `StatusCode` on the `ResponseException` as well? I'm not familiar enough with the protocol to say whether that's an internal detail or something the consumer should be able to react to.


---