Wow, I'm surprised Structr didn't turn up in any of my previous google searches.
I need to do further research, but on an initial glance, this might look to do what I've actually spent numerous hours trying to do with custom rolled code. Thanks for the hat tip! -Jason On Wednesday, July 16, 2014 4:28:54 PM UTC-4, Jason Gillman Jr. wrote: > > I was just wondering if the ability to utilize a schema of sorts was on > the road map. > > When I say schema, I'm thinking more along the lines of relational > constraints. > > Let's use the following simple example. > > We have the following types of entities represented by node labels > (:`Server`) > (:`Switch`) > (:`Physical Interface`) > > Then we would want to enforce the following relations (I would think these > restrictions would seem intuitive): > > (:`Server`)-[:`Contains`]->(:`Physical Interface`) > (:`Switch`)-[:`Contains`]->(:`Physical Interface`) > (:`Physical Interface`)-[:`Connects`]-(:`Physical Interface`) > > > Basically, to ensure data consistency without having to build it into an > application, we would want it so that Neo4j would not allow, for example, a > Server to connect to another Server, or a Switch, nor would we want to make > a Physical Interface contain a Server. > > Is something like this in the plans? Of course the use of these > constraints would be completely optional. > > Thanks! > > -Jason > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Neo4j" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to neo4j+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
