I totally agree agree with this ;)
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Aseem Kishore <aseem.kish...@gmail.com>wrote: > I've found it interesting that Neo4j has a mandatory "type" property on > relationships, but not nodes. Just curious, what's the reasoning behind the > design having this distinction? > > If you say "you need to know what type of relationship these two nodes > have", I would reply, "don't you also need to know what type of nodes they > are, as well?" > > Similarly, if you say "because there can be many different types of > relationships", I would reply, "there can also be many different types of > nodes, and in both cases, there doesn't need to be". > > A perfect example is in the documentation/tutorial: movies and actors. Just > the fact that we talk about the nodes in the database as "movies" and > "actors" -- wouldn't it be helpful for the database to support that > categorization first-class? > > To be precise, it's easy for us to add a "type" property to nodes ourselves > (we do in our usage), but it's not a first-class property like > relationships, where queries and traversals can easily and naturally > specify > the type or types they expect. > > Thanks! > > Aseem > _______________________________________________ > Neo4j mailing list > User@lists.neo4j.org > https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user > -- Pablo Pareja Tobes LinkedIn http://www.linkedin.com/in/pabloparejatobes Twitter http://www.twitter.com/pablopareja http://about.me/pablopareja http://www.ohnosequences.com _______________________________________________ Neo4j mailing list User@lists.neo4j.org https://lists.neo4j.org/mailman/listinfo/user
