> I think most complains about JDO in this group is not saying that JDO > has issues. It just that GAE is so different then traditional > environments that old frameworks aren't 100% suitable. If there's a > modify version of JDO that strip out irrelevant features, and put in > some important low level api features, it will be much much better.
Totally agree there are features of the ***ORM part of the JDO specification*** that aren't applicable to BigTable, but the whole point of JDO is that those should only be used where they are applicable to the datastore. To give an example, we (DataNucleus) support persistence to ODF documents, yet such a thing as @SecondaryTable is simply ignored there since it makes no sense. The same idea should be applied to GAE/J. There is absolutely nothing in the JDO ***API*** that is irrelevant to GAE/J and BigTable. When somebody actually defines what are these low level features that can't be handled by the JDO API then there would be a basis for comment, so if someone wants to define that then there can be meaningful discussion. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
