> > Yes, I understood that. But I think you should be explicit about which > relationship types you *expect* to remove. This means that if the node had > relationships of types that you didn't expect those will not be removed and > an exception will be thrown when you commit the transaction. This is a good > thing, since it helps you detect errors in your code. If for example the > node is part of an in-graph data structure, it would probably have to be > gracefully removed from that data structure, just removing all of the > relationships from the node would probably break the data structure. I > would > much prefer the utility methods to aid you by signaling that you forgot to > remove the node, by throwing an exception, than to silently break your data > structures. >
One convenient convention I use that is a kind of compromise here is that I assume each node has some level of ownership of the outgoing relationships, but not the incoming ones. So I delete all incoming relationships directly, but only explicitly delete the outgoing relationships of the types I expect, before finally deleting the node. So I don't care if there is a mistake in the incoming relationships, but do care if there is a mistake in the outgoing ones. I guess this pattern may only suite the conventions of my data model. _______________________________________________ Neo mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
