Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Craig Taverner
they belong. From: tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 15:33:04 +0200 To: user@lists.neo4j.org Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? The RelationshipType isn't a type. It is a navigational feature. I've slapped

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Niels Hoogeveen
. From: rick.bullo...@thingworx.com To: user@lists.neo4j.org Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 08:51:59 -0700 Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? I would say that the same is true of a type on a node - it could be a significant performance optimization

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Achim 'ahzf' Friedland
Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta: In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid strings as types for a whole host of reasons (performance, future renaming/refactoring, etc.). Having type-ids for performance reasons instead of type-strings is okay, but because of future

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Rick Bullotta
...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On Behalf Of Achim 'ahzf' Friedland Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:44 PM To: Neo4j user discussions Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta: In general, I think it's

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Michael Hunger
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:44 PM To: Neo4j user discussions Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? Am 05.05.2011 19:19, schrieb Rick Bullotta: In general, I think it's a good idea to avoid strings as types for a whole host of reasons

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Niels Hoogeveen
...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On Behalf Of Niels Hoogeveen Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2011 1:22 PM To: user@lists.neo4j.org Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? I think the basic confusion surrounding this issue

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Bobby Norton
think of would be node, something that doesn't add any information. From: rick.bullo...@thingworx.com To: user@lists.neo4j.org Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? Respectfully disagree. In many domains

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Michael Hunger
reasonable label I can think of would be node, something that doesn't add any information. From: rick.bullo...@thingworx.com To: user@lists.neo4j.org Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? Respectfully

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Michael Hunger
@lists.neo4j.org Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 10:25:58 -0700 Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? Respectfully disagree. In many domains, it is valuable to know the type of the domain object a node represents in situ with no knowledge whatsoever of its place

Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why?

2011-05-05 Thread Niels Hoogeveen
. From: michael.hun...@neotechnology.com Date: Thu, 5 May 2011 22:37:19 +0200 To: user@lists.neo4j.org Subject: Re: [Neo4j] First-class type property on relationships but not nodes; why? Sorry meant Niels of course ;) Sent from my iBrick4 Am 05.05.2011 um 22:35 schrieb Michael