On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:38 AM, Rick Bullotta
rick.bullo...@burningskysoftware.com wrote:
Hi, Tobias. I was only referring to the case when it was the intent to
delete the node also. In that case, you *have* to delete all the
relationships to the node in order to delete the node. No
2010/4/25 Niels Hoogeveen pd_aficion...@hotmail.com
My observation Nodes and Relationships are not treated on equal footing
very much pertains to the 1.0 version, and I am glad to see the directions
being taken with regards to the 1.1 version.
I did follow the discussion about the new
Is there any kind of consensus here?
Always send back full node representation? Not send back full node
representation? Configurable per request somehow?
2010/4/21 Brian Turner br...@wodaklab.org
I would have to agree. I've been trying out the REST interface, and it
would
be nice to have
Would prefer configurable. Getting all the property data each time would be
problematic in many of our use cases.
/blah/blah/node/* = all properties
/blah/blah/node = no properties or system default behavior
/blah/blah/node/property = specific property
Alternatively a query parameter could be
Hello,
I am testing Neo4j for a week now and i'm trying to make some operations on
the Graph concurrent.
For this I use the PoolExecutor and do some Write-Operations. but the
TransactionManager just throws Exceptions i don't understand.
F.ex.:
javax.transaction.xa.XAException: Unknown
We should fix this as soon as we can, could you provide a (small) test case
that can reproduce this with some reliability?
/Tobias
On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Stefan Berndt kont...@stberndt.de wrote:
Hello,
I am testing Neo4j for a week now and i'm trying to make some operations on
I agree that having the domain classes extend NodeWrapper is coupling the
domain too tightly to the implementation.
You would want your domain object definitions to be interfaces then have the
implementation extend NodeWrapper:
public interface Person {
public void setName( String name );
}
Off course i can. This is my testcase-classfile:
import org.junit.After;
import org.junit.Before;
import org.junit.Test;
import org.neo4j.graphdb.Transaction;
import org.neo4j.kernel.impl.transaction.DeadlockDetectedException;
import java.io.IOException;
import
Hi,
This code will shutdown the kernel right away. Depending on timing you
may shutdown the kernel while the thread pool is still executing and
that could be the cause of your error.
If you remove the @After / kernel shutdown code or add code in the
@Test method to wait for the thread pool to
Interesting!
I have created a project ogrm.org (Terrible name, but its a name nonetheless
;) to persuse the different angles here.
My second pass at the problem yielded a more annotation heavy Proxy
approach:
public class PersonImpl implements Person {
@Id
private Object id;
@Value
private
If you want to get the orderings right without having to rely on waiting for
a wall clock, I'd suggest using a CountDownLatch[1]
Then you would change the tearDown() method, and the run() method of the
Executor task as follows:
code
CountDownLatch latch = new CountDownLatch(10);
@After
public
Hi Peter,
sorry to pick up this old thread, but you mentioned that in your system
revisions are automatically created with every transaction. How do you
do this? Hooks, aspects, weaving, magic?
Thanks and best regards,
Georg
Hi,
I have also built some versioning concept on Neo before.
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
I think the way it's currently implemented is great for power users, but
obviously not always that easy to find for first time users. I'm a believer
in coding a couple of different ways for a user to find the same capability,
to suite a wider audience :-)
On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:55 PM, Anders
14 matches
Mail list logo
