>From your quick example, it looks like Spring Data Neo4j is what most folks really expect out of the box with Neo4j. I know I certainly did when I installed Neo4j for the first time, last year. Spring Data seems to meet with my expectation (based on my bottom-up Schema-evolving work on Freebase.com)
On Fri, Oct 14, 2011 at 11:15 AM, Michael Hunger < [email protected]> wrote: > With spring data neo4j you are able to use any domain entity with any node, > so it is for instance > possible to project an entity to another when used in a different context. > > Otherwise the Spring Data Neo4j config less invasive and more concise than > the existing model > but uses the same approach behind the scenes (fields are mapped to > properties and relationships - 1:1 or 1:n are mapped to relationships). > > @NodeEntity > class Movie { > String title; > Set<Actor> actors; > } > > a more elaborate example. > @NodeEntity > class Movie { > @GraphId Long id; > @Indexed(fulltext=true, indexName="movies") String title; > @RelatedToVia(type="ACTS_IN", direction=Direction.INCOMING) > Iterable<Role> roles; > Person director; > } > > @RelationshipEntity > class Role { > @Indexed String title; > @StartNode Actor actor; > @EndNode Movie movie; > } > > @NodeEntity > class Actor { > String name; > Gender gender; > Date birthday; > public Role actsIn(Movie movie, String role) { > return relateTo(movie,"ACTS_IN",Role.class).withTitle(role); > } > @RelatedTo(type="ACTS_IN") > Set<Movie> movies; > } > > > Am 14.10.2011 um 16:14 schrieb Thad Guidry: > > > I would suggest breaking down his statement further and fill in the > blanks > > to gain even better insight into his conjecture. > > > > "it‘s basically a bunch of nodes where you just blob your attributes.‘ > > Worse than that, to wrap objects around it, you have to have them > explicitly > > incorporate their node class, which is ugly, smelly, violates every law > of > > separation of concerns and logical vs. physical models." > > > > > > "it's" - Neo4j > > > > "to wrap objects around IT" - what is the IT that he is referring to ? > > > > "you have to have THEM explicitly incorporate THEIR node class" - what is > > THEM / THEIR really mean for Neo4j here ? > > > > "law of separation of concerns" - what and where are we JOINING that > should > > be SEPARATING , is it only the Domain objects ? > > > > > > From outside looking in, I have seen others not complete their Domain > Model > > as needed with Neo4j, and also make it entirely TOO SIMPLE. Why ? > Because > > they might be new to graph databases, or their Domain Model really IS NOT > > complete yet and they need help from others to assist with putting > together > > an elegant Domain Model to begin with. Being able to easily wire up a > > Domain Model is the primary reason they were attracted to graph databases > in > > the first place !... to build it out without resorting to defining a > rigid > > schema (a SQL table mantra). But many need help in contorting their > Domain > > Model over time. To me, Neo4j is already wide open enough to handle that > > contortion and the beauty of Neo4j & graph databases in general. > > > > Folks just need better much more detailed Domain Model examples than what > is > > available, that would help incredibly so, since many folks have a complex > > Domain Model to begin with (they just do not realize it yet) and they are > > hoping Neo4j will help them quickly wire it up, stretch it out when > needed, > > and analyze the hell out of it when the time comes, and stretch it out > even > > more as they continue to fill it up and expand their Domain Model. A > bottom > > up approach (and I mean really BOTTOM) is the best practice, but it does > > take thought and research in finding where that generic bottom is at. A > > "Friend" - what is a Friend, what attributes does a Friend have ? Which > ones > > do I care about now and can worry about later ? A "Stock Issuing > Company", > > do I need to think of my relationships first for those, or should I start > > with attributes ? Will those attributes be shared with others ? Do I > care > > about it now at this early beginning of my Domain Model, or can I wait on > > this ? Should I start with attributes (properties) always, and leave > > relationships alone until the very end, when I build a Domain Model ? > (the > > answer to that last question is YES, because Neo4j actually DOES allow > you > > to) > > > >> He attacks our pattern of building domain models with Neo4j, calling it > >>> "ugly", "smelly" and "in violation of every law of separation of > concerns > >>> and logical vs. physical models". Is he right? My feeling is that he is > >>> brain washed with too many so called "best practices", but Neo4j has > been > >> my > >>> main model for a long time now, my perspective is likely skewed. I'd > like > >> to > >>> hear your thoughts. > >> > > > > Your main model IS NOT Neo4j. That is your main database that "holds" > your > > Domain Model. And if Neo4j is not really doing this from top to bottom, > > then I would agree with Richard that the Neo4j infrastructure is not in > the > > best place right now and might need more work. > > > > -- > > -Thad > > http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry > > _______________________________________________ > > Neo4j mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > -- -Thad http://www.freebase.com/view/en/thad_guidry _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list [email protected] https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
