I suspect many potential use cases can not only be resolved without resorting to saving objects, but might be better without them. I had one such case recently, where I wanted to save Date objects, and actually wrote serialization code to save as byte[] to neo4j. Then it dawned on me that my Dates were just convenience wrappers on the real data, which was a long time in milliseconds. So I tossed my code and saved the long. Moral of the story: having the ability to save an object would have resulting in me using the less optimal choice. Often it is better to think more about the data, even if you have to do what Emil said and decompose the object into its constituents to save it.
On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 7:26 PM, Laurent Laborde <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sun, Nov 22, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Robert Lockhart <[email protected]> > wrote: > > it's super-lame that you only allow a basic set of objects to be the > values > > of properties. Any plans to open it up to arbitrary objects? > > Any use case for this ? > > -- > Laurent "ker2x" Laborde > Sysadmin & DBA at http://www.over-blog.com/ > _______________________________________________ > Neo mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
