Thanks for that explanation, I thought it wouldn't be as simple as it "could" be.
Philip On 5/4/08, Emil Eifrem <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Philip, > > So from a Java perspective, your two Enums are definitely different > types and there's no interoperability between them whatsoever. But Neo > ignores that. For Neo, the *name* of a relationship type (as defined > by the Stirng name() method in the RelationshipType interface) is the > unique identifier of a relationship type. From the API spec: > > "The name uniquely identifies a relationship type, i.e. two > different RelationshipType implementations with different object > identifies (and possibly even different classes) are semantically > equivalent if they have equal names." > > > (http://api.neo4j.org/current/org/neo4j/api/core/RelationshipType.html#name()) > > We chose this -- despite some drawbacks, like potential confusion in > equals() comparisons [see javadocs for elaboration] -- so that it > would be easy to refactor relationship type enums for example as > outlined in your mail. > > Btw, the reason you don't usually think of the name() method of a > RelationshipType is that it's implicitly defined by the Enum class > (it's actually synthesized by the Java5 compiler to return the name of > the constant field in your enum). That's why it's neat to define > reltypes through enums. > > So the short answer is: Neo will treat > MyRelationshipTypes.CONTAINED_IN as an equal() and same type as > MomsRelationshipTypes.CONTAINED_IN. > > Hope that helps! > > Cheers, > > > -- > Emil Eifrém, CEO [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Neo Technology, www.neotechnology.com > Cell: +46 733 462 271 | US: 206 403 8808 > _______________________________________________ > Neo mailing list > User@lists.neo4j.org > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
