Already though of that :) behold:
PipeBuilder.fromNode(startNode).into(otherNode(A))
.into(traverse(myTraversalDescription))
.into(traverse(myOtherTraversalDescription))
.into(otherNode(B));
Or whatever. You can even use other "from", f.ex: fromNode, fromNodes,
fromPath, fromPaths a.s.o.
Something like that?
2011/3/15 Craig Taverner <cr...@amanzi.com>
> I like the pipes idea. What I would like to see is nested traversers. The
> pipe example below seems to imply single hops at each step, but it would be
> nicer to allow each step to traverse until it reached a certain criteria,
> at
> which point a different traversal would take over.
>
> In the old and current API's it seems to do this you need to create a
> traversal, iterate over it, and create a new traversal inside the loop.
>
> We created a Ruby DSL for nested traversals a year or so ago that looks a
> bit like:
>
>
> chart 'Distribution analysis' do
> self.domain_axis='categories'
> self.range_axis='values'
> select 'First dataset',:categories=>'name',:values=>'value' do
> from {
> from {
> traverse(:outgoing,:CHILD,1)
> where {type=='gis' and name=='network.csv'}
> }
> traverse(:outgoing,:AGGREGATION,1)
> where {name=='azimuth' and get_property(:select)=='max' and
> distribute=='auto'}
> }
> traverse(:outgoing,:CHILD,:all)
> end
> end
>
> This is quite a complex example, but the key points are the from method
> which defines where to start a traversal, and the traverse method which
> defines the traversal itself, with the where method which is like the old
> ReturnableEvaluator.
>
> Will the new pipes provide something like this?
>
> On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:19 AM, Massimo Lusetti <mluse...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 15, 2011 at 9:11 AM, Mattias Persson
> > <matt...@neotechnology.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I'm positive that some nice API will enter the kernel at some point,
> > f.ex.
> > > I'm experimenting with an API like this:
> > >
> > > for(Node node :
> > >
> >
> PipeBuilder.fromNode(startNode).into(otherNode(A)).into(otherNode(B)).nodes())
> > > {
> > > // node will be (3) from the example above
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > I hope I didn't confuse you with all this :)
> >
> > Nope, the opposite. Thanks for the clarification and that kind of API
> > would be a killer feature IMHO.
> >
> > It will be even more pleasant to work with neo4j...
> >
> > Cheers
> > --
> > Massimo
> > http://meridio.blogspot.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Neo4j mailing list
> > User@lists.neo4j.org
> > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Neo4j mailing list
> User@lists.neo4j.org
> https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
>
--
Mattias Persson, [matt...@neotechnology.com]
Hacker, Neo Technology
www.neotechnology.com
_______________________________________________
Neo4j mailing list
User@lists.neo4j.org
https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
