[ 
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-612?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=14491603#comment-14491603
 ] 

pieter martin commented on TINKERPOP3-612:
------------------------------------------

I'd include {{set}}. 

When reading {{single,list,set}} one almost don't need to read the docs any 
further as it is such well known terms. {{multi}} on the other hand is a new 
term. Neither {{List}} nor {{Set}}, something else? Hibernate's term for it is 
{{Bag}}. {{unorderedlist}} is probably more descriptive. Never seen anyone put 
the same ball twice in a bag!

Although I have never actually used Redis their support for 
{{list,set,sortedset}} was one of the first nice (as in super useful) things I 
noticed about it.

> Support only two types of Cardinality -- SINGLE and MULTI
> ---------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: TINKERPOP3-612
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/TINKERPOP3-612
>             Project: TinkerPop 3
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: structure
>            Reporter: Marko A. Rodriguez
>            Assignee: Marko A. Rodriguez
>             Fix For: 3.0.0.GA
>
>
> We currently support the following {{Cardinality}} states:
> * {{single}}: one property per property key.
> * {{list}}: any number of properties per property key.
> * {{set}}: multi properties for the property key if and only if the values 
> are unique.
> Right now equality for {{set}} is determined by {{Object.equals}}. This may 
> be sufficient for most users, but maybe not. Next, this is an expensive 
> operation for vendors that don't index on value. Finally, it seems to be of 
> limited use in practice due to its complex behavior regarding meta-property 
> overwriting. I think its best to NOT include {{set}} as an option -- 
> simplifies the API and is more aligned with the core semantics of:
> * {{single}}
> * {{multi}}



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Reply via email to