This is a bit above my head, as we're users of the REST API rather than working with the core server in Java directly, but I just want to ask: will this pollute the database's pool of node IDs?
Not the end of the world if it will, but it would be nice if it didn't. =) Maybe I just don't understand the use case or am not affected by it. I'm also not sure whether we "need" or use RelationshipType (we do of course specify relationship types when traversing, etc.). Aseem On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Niels Hoogeveen <pd_aficion...@hotmail.com > wrote: > > Thanks for the cheer. Would someone currently working on core be able to > look at the feasibility of this request? > Niels > > > Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 18:30:23 +0200 > > From: neubauer.pe...@gmail.com > > To: user@lists.neo4j.org > > Subject: Re: [Neo4j] Reification of RelationshipType > > > > Nils, > > Sounds great, I am on parental leave all summer so I can only cheer :) > > > > /peter > > > > Sent from my phone. > > On Jul 18, 2011 5:22 PM, "Niels Hoogeveen" <pd_aficion...@hotmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > In fact, this feature request wouldn't have to be more than a > > setNodeId(long id) and getNodeId() method on RelationshipType. This would > > eliminate the need to look up additional relationship type information > > through the Lucene Index. > > > Niels > > > > > >> From: pd_aficion...@hotmail.com > > >> To: user@lists.neo4j.org > > >> Date: Mon, 18 Jul 2011 15:10:25 +0200 > > >> Subject: [Neo4j] Reification of RelationshipType > > >> > > >> > > >> In another thread today, I defended the schemaless nature of Neo4J, > > however I believe there is one area where Neo4J has some sense of schema, > > which could use some improvement in my opinion, the RelationshipType. > > >> Whenever creating a typing layer on top of Neo4J, some duplication of > > functionality will be introduced with regard to RelationshipTypes. > > >> There is the RelationshipType in core, which is basically a name, > > >> and there will be a node in the typing layer, which will represent > that > > same RelationshipType as a node. > > >> Linking these two RelationshipTypes needs to be done by means of the > > Lucene index, which is not necessarily the fastest operation. > > >> Would it be possible to reify the RelationshipType as a node in core, > so > > relationshiptypes can be traversed. Different typing layers can then use > > that node to add additional information to the relationship (for example > > stating the transitivity, symmetry, reflexivity of the relationship, or > > whether the relationship is functional, injective or one-to-one, or the > > domain and range of the relationship). > > >> Different typing layers may implement the relationshiptype > differently, > > but having a node to attach this information to would suffice for all > > possible scenarios. > > >> The creation of a RelationshipType-node, can even be done lazy, > > >> so Neo4J users that don't need a RelationshipType-node won't be > bothered > > with additional nodes in the database. > > >> Niels > > >> > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
