On 12/29/2013 3:11 AM, Nigel Small wrote:
While I agree that JSON has very broad acceptance and use, I have to
disagree on one very major point: JSON is a data interchange format,
not a data type. The distinction is quite significant.
This thread was spawned from a previous closed conversation but my
understanding is that you want to store arbitrarily nested maps as
property values and that, up until now, you have been using JSON
strings to hold these maps in serialised form. If that is the case,
then the idea under discussion is perfectly appropriate for your use
case and any map implementation would almost certainly use a
Map<String, Object> internally to hold its data. This would then
probably be converted to a JSON object over REST - although this would
cause ambiguity with existing objects used for node and relationship
representation.
Regardless of the precise implementation though, I think we're all
broadly talking about the same thing.
I'd certainly rather have sufficiently powerful maps (semi-untyped) than
JSON. The JSON is a short-term response to that lack.
I also think we're trying to nudge Wes into making this his sample
user-defined-function implementation ;-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Neo4j" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
