The service code was written before Java 1.5 support was dropped, so that
will still work.
There are a few other places where we use java 6 APIs, mainly
java.util.Queue and java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit. javax.scripting is super
simple to support under 1.5 (there is a backport package), and it is
There has been a few discussions around supporting Loops, relationships with
the same start node as end node, recently. Both here on the mailing list,
and even more at the Neo Technology office.
We have a working patch for handling loops in Neo4j, but one final piece is
missing: what should the
Hi,
I say option 1.
Marko.
On May 16, 2011 8:12 AM, Tobias Ivarsson
tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com wrote:
There has been a few discussions around supporting Loops, relationships with
the same start node as end node, recently. Both here on the mailing list,
and even more at the Neo
I agree with Marko.
In fact, I'd say that if you can choose more than one option, I'd go with
option 1 and 2. The option one when you're not sure you're creating a loop
(not sure if the end node will be the start node), so in order to avoid ifs
on the client code, option 1 will go for it. If
Hi,
definitely +1 for option 1
Pablo
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Adriano Henrique de Almeida
adrianoalmei...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Marko.
In fact, I'd say that if you can choose more than one option, I'd go with
option 1 and 2. The option one when you're not sure you're
+1 on the +1 for option 1
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Pablo Pareja ppar...@era7.com wrote:
Hi,
definitely +1 for option 1
Pablo
___
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
I'll go with option 1 as well.
/anders
On 05/16/2011 03:16 PM, Jim Webber wrote:
And a +1 to option 1 from me as well.
Jim
On 16 May 2011, at 14:08, Andres Taylor wrote:
+1 on the +1 for option 1
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:49 PM, Pablo Parejappar...@era7.com wrote:
Hi,
definitely
This could be the problem, yes. The repository factories that create
the repositories from the interface definitions would need to import
the domain specific packages that contain the interfaces to have
access to them - which requires buddy loading.
It seems as if the CGLIB enhanced class
+1 for option 1.
-Original Message-
From: user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On
Behalf Of Tobias Ivarsson
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 8:12 AM
To: Neo user discussions
Subject: [Neo4j] Color suggestions for the Self-Relationship bike shed
There has been a
+1 for 1 too
Am 16.05.2011 14:11, schrieb Tobias Ivarsson:
What do you think?
___
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
+1 for 1
Sent from my iPhone
On 16 May 2011, at 14:32, Rick Bullotta rick.bullo...@thingworx.com wrote:
+1 for option 1.
-Original Message-
From: user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org [mailto:user-boun...@lists.neo4j.org] On
Behalf Of Tobias Ivarsson
Sent: Monday, May 16, 2011 8:12 AM
Does anyone NOT planning to use loops have an opinion in the matter?
That would be very valuable input.
Cheers,
--
Tobias Ivarsson tobias.ivars...@neotechnology.com
Hacker, Neo Technology
www.neotechnology.com
Cellphone: +46 706 534857
___
Neo4j
Please direct your questions (other than those with attachments) to the list
so that more people can chime in!
2011/5/13 Noppanit Charassinvichai noppani...@gmail.com
Hi Mattias,
Thanks again for the reply and I'm trying to do the first suggestion. This
is the code that I'm playing with
Deniz,
just pushed a change and test that should fix this,
https://github.com/neo4j/neo4j-spatial/commit/b44f55b5bd94dc2c6b9f1f5db9d3c13575ae9dc4
Could you try it out?
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn
Hi Peter,
I had fixed it by removing the bounding box property if there were no chid
nodes but your fix works too.
Thank you for help.
Deniz
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Peter Neubauer
peter.neuba...@neotechnology.com wrote:
Deniz,
just pushed a change and test that should fix this,
15 matches
Mail list logo