Done,
enjoy! https://github.com/neo4j/community/issues/80
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer
http://www.neo4j.org - NO
We can do this after 1.5.
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer
http://www.neo4j.org - NOSQL for the Enterprise.
http://st
Sure, but implementations using it will break then. Maybe not this close to
release? hard decision.
2011/11/3 Peter Neubauer
> So,
> do we fix the implementation to match (see
> https://github.com/neo4j/community/issues/80) or adjust the JavaDoc? I
> kinda think it makes sense to change the code
So,
do we fix the implementation to match (see
https://github.com/neo4j/community/issues/80) or adjust the JavaDoc? I
kinda think it makes sense to change the code, have written tests for
it.
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
Right, the toDepth implementation isn't matching the javadoc and it is a
bit confusing.
2011/11/3 Alex
> Done:
>
>
> http://neo4jdb.lighthouseapp.com/projects/77609-neo4j-community/tickets/17-consisnte-behavior-of-fromdepth-todepth-and-atdepth
>
> there's a typo in the title... time to get some
Done:
http://neo4jdb.lighthouseapp.com/projects/77609-neo4j-community/tickets/17-consisnte-behavior-of-fromdepth-todepth-and-atdepth
there's a typo in the title... time to get some sleep :)
Alex
--
View this message in context:
http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/zero-fromD
Mmmh,
let me do a testcase on this ... can you raise an issue?
Cheers,
/peter neubauer
GTalk: neubauer.peter
Skype peter.neubauer
Phone +46 704 106975
LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/neubauer
Twitter http://twitter.com/peterneubauer
http://www.neo4j.org
That sounds a bit bizarre: in my code, fromDepth(n) && toDepth(n) seems to be
working like atDepth(n) if n>0 (that's what should be happening, isn't it?)
Alex
--
View this message in context:
http://neo4j-community-discussions.438527.n3.nabble.com/zero-fromDepth-and-toDepth-tp3474825p3476058.htm
Well,
fromDepth is
public static Evaluator fromDepth( final int depth )
{
return new Evaluator()
{
public Evaluation evaluate( Path path )
{
return path.length() < depth ?
Evaluation.EXCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE : Evaluation.INCLUDE_AND_CONTINUE;
Hi Peter
it admittedly makes little sense to use fromDepth(0) & toDepth(0) because
there's obviously no need to run the query at all. Anyway, I'd expect a
behavior consistent with, for example fromDepth(1) & toDepth(1), which
returns only nodes at depth 1 (if I'm not mistaken). So, I'd definitely
What about
atDepth(0) ?
Michael
Am 03.11.2011 um 03:33 schrieb Peter Neubauer:
> Alex,
> looking at the source, the Evaluators.toDepth() does:
>
> public static Evaluator toDepth( final int depth )
>{
>return new Evaluator()
>{
>public Evaluation evaluate( Path p
Alex,
looking at the source, the Evaluators.toDepth() does:
public static Evaluator toDepth( final int depth )
{
return new Evaluator()
{
public Evaluation evaluate( Path path )
{
return path.length() < depth ?
Evaluation.INCLUDE_AND_CONT
Hi everybody
when setting fromDepth and toDepth both at zero, like in the following code
Traversal.description.breadthFirst
.evaluator(Evaluators.fromDepth(0))
.evaluator(Evaluators.toDepth(0))
I'm expecting to get only the start node, but I don't. Am I missing
anything?
Thanks!
Cheers
Ale
13 matches
Mail list logo
