"De gustibus non est disputandum" - if you feel more comfortable with low-level Api than with JDO/JPA Api it is up to you. You spent two days trying to cope with Google App Engine JPA/JDO problem, I spent a lot of sleepless nights migrating my EJB3/JPA application to Google App Engine keeping backward compatibility (with success). But, regardless this rather discouraging experience, I don't think that recommending low-level Api as framework of choice is a good advice. For me it is much more natural to think and talk using terms and concepts like "entity classes" (typed), "transactions", "relationships", "properties", "persistency" - even with all limitation forced by Google App Engine implementation - than "Entities" (untyped), "Key", "Ancestors Key", "filter predicate" etc. I don't think that there is any real advantage of using "pure" low- level Api against JPA/JDO level. But, of course, I can imagine that there could be some examples that handling with low level concepts in more natural - for instance - if all you want is to keep some row data identified only by keys and keys hierarchy. But - please forget me - type of thinking: "I cannot cope with some JPA/JDO problems so I'm switching to low level API" does not convince me. The only advantage I see is that you can use objects without all this JPA/JDO dressing as TO objects - it is a real advantage, I fully agree with that.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine for Java" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
