On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Atri Sharma <atri.jiit@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Your second drawing didn't really make any sense to me. :(
>>
>> I do think it would be most productive to focus on what the API for dealing
>> with graph data would look like before trying to handle the storage aspect.
>> The storage is potentially dirt-simple, as others have shown. The only
>> challenge would be efficiency, but it's impossible to discuss efficiency
>> without some clue of how the data will be accessed. Frankly, for the first
>> round of this I think it would be best if the storage really was just some
>> raw tables. Once something is available people will start figuring out how
>> to use it, and where the API needs to be improved.
>>
>> --
>
> Thanks for your reply.
>
> Yes,my drawing sucks.heh.
>
> Ok,I agree. I was pretty perked up about efficiency in storage, hence
> started designing.
This is the wrong place to start. A proposed API will help people
understand the use cases you're trying to solve (if any) that are
insufficiently covered by existing paradigms.
merlin
