It would, but there is another property of these graphs that it wouldn't enforce. The vertices aren't supposed to be connected to other vertices in the same set. On Mar 4, 2012 8:13 AM, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi James, > would a Graph, which Vertices are of type Object, help on this? > TIA, > -Simo > > http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > http://www.99soft.org/ > > > > On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 2:10 AM, James Carman > <jcar...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: > > We also need to consider k-partite graphs. Not all nodes will be of the > > same type. > > > > Sent from tablet device. Please excuse typos and brevity. > > On Mar 3, 2012 11:19 AM, "Simone Tripodi" <simonetrip...@apache.org> > wrote: > > > >> hola again, > >> > >> > good observation. My 2 cents: it might still make sense for users to > map > >> > their existing domain (including "edges") to the graph (e.g. Routers > to > >> > Vertices and Cables to Edges) and "get it back" as soon as they are > done > >> > with graph operations (e.g. once they find the shortest path, they > >> > automatically have the sequence of Cables they need). > >> > >> so, at least WeightedEdge is something that still has to exist - what > >> is the reason to query the Network to know the Cable capacity?!? Isn't > >> it enough getting it directly from the Cable itself? > >> > >> -Simo > >> > >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ > >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ > >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi > >> http://www.99soft.org/ > >> > >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >> > >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
