On 26 August 2016 at 16:28, Davide D'Alto wrote:
> I published an initial post on staging:
> http://staging.in.relation.to/2016/08/26/should-we-drop-rest-for-neo4j/
>
> I'm not sure how should I ask the user about it, let me know what you think.
> Also, is there a way we prefer to generate poll fo
I published an initial post on staging:
http://staging.in.relation.to/2016/08/26/should-we-drop-rest-for-neo4j/
I'm not sure how should I ask the user about it, let me know what you think.
Also, is there a way we prefer to generate poll for the website or I
can just rely on the comment?
This one
On 26 August 2016 at 12:35, Emmanuel Bernard wrote:
> On Fri 2016-08-26 11:32, Gunnar Morling wrote:
>> > How much additional work would it be to keep the "old" rest in a legacy
>> module separated from the pure one?
>> > Does it even make sense?
>>
>> As a user, when would I prefer which one over
On Fri 2016-08-26 11:32, Gunnar Morling wrote:
> > How much additional work would it be to keep the "old" rest in a legacy
> module separated from the pure one?
> > Does it even make sense?
>
> As a user, when would I prefer which one over the other? If Bolt is the
> general recommendation, I'd li
> How much additional work would it be to keep the "old" rest in a legacy
module separated from the pure one?
> Does it even make sense?
As a user, when would I prefer which one over the other? If Bolt is the
general recommendation, I'd limit efforts on this one. It seems to be one
of those knobs
Can you write a blog post with a small poll to know if anyone complains
about dropping REST. Let's have it on for a week and make a decision. If
nothing conclusive comes out, let's drop it.
On Fri 2016-08-26 8:27, Davide D'Alto wrote:
> > Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to
> Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to keep the "old"
> rest in a legacy module
It would still require to be maintained, I would prefer not to have it
unless there is a specific use case for it
>. Does Bolt run atop HTTP as I remember it
I don't think so, it's a binary pro
Thinking out loud. How much additional work would it be to keep the "old" rest
in a legacy module separated from the pure one?
Does it even make sense?
I'm fine with the removal and focus on bolt on a general basis. Does Bolt run
atop HTTP as I remember it ? Or is that specific ? If the later so
Hi Davide,
I wanted to add 2 things:
- Neo4j remote with Rest has not been released yet;
- if we remove the Rest protocol, remote Neo4j will only be supported with
Neo4j >= 3
Personally I'm +1 to only support remote Neo4j with Bolt. Maintaining one
more dialect/protocol just to provide remote for
Hello,
at the moment in OGM we connect remotely using the Rest API.
The reason is that when I created the dialect the new Bolt[1] protocol
wasn't available.
I've now finished implementing the dialect so that it uses the Bolt
protocol, there is a lot of duplication since it is very similar to
the a
10 matches
Mail list logo
