Hi Christian That's interesting ...
I just felt that I wanted to manage the references (keys) myself, so I could have more control over when and how those references are instantiated - Twig seems to do that for you (great in many ways), but I have some situations with my application where I think that could have a performance impact - I cannot be sure yet, but I wanted to play safe on that. The single developer question is tricky - I suppose it is more risky (he might want a holiday one day!), but on the other hand it is open source. On Apr 25, 1:29 pm, Christian Goudreau <goudreau.christ...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have one question in mind after reading what you wrote, in wich way you > have better control in Objectify than Twig ? I'm interested since I moved > from Objectify to Twig and didn't end up in that situation, yet. > > For the cons of only one Developper, he may be alone, but he answer every > single one question asked in his mailing list, though righ now he's in only > for two weeks. And he works really fast, bug fix are often done in less than > two days. > > Christian > > On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 5:11 AM, David Sowerby > <david.sowe...@virgin.net>wrote: > > > > > hi jbdhl > > > I wish there was an easy answer too - but I suppose at least we have > > choice! > > > My experience, which I hope will at least help you a bit .... > > > For back ground .... I am transferring a prototype developed using a > > db4o back end, but had little done for the UI. There are a lot of > > relationships in the domain layer, and the design was very much OO not > > RDBMS > > > I started by using JDO thinking it would give me portability. I got > > it to work, but seemed to end up with some messy code. To be fair, > > that in part was due to my lack of real understanding of GAE, but I > > didn't really feel I had achieved portability either - there would > > still have been changes to make to move elsewhere > > > I therefore abandoned the idea of portability, accepting that I would > > probably have to re-write the Dao layer anyway, if ever I want to > > move. I decided that it would be better to spend more time on getting > > that Dao layer isolated and independent - that would give me > > reasonable portability without compromising the different strengths of > > different persistent platforms. > > > I tried Twig - it seemed a good solution, and was certainly easy to > > set up and use. I found the documentation is bit sparse on property > > translators, but otherwise I had no real problems. The amount which > > Twig takes away from you is one of those classic blessing/curse > > situations - it is a blessing not to have to think about some of the > > detail, but you lose control. I felt that once I had understood GAE, > > I may be losing some of benefits by not having enough direct control - > > for this application. I would certainly consider Twig again for other > > applications. > > > So I have now migrated to Objectify, which seems fairly > > straightforward, and I have the level of control I was looking for - > > with a particular eye on performance since I do not yet have any idea > > how my application will perform > > > I'm afraid the Twig-Objectify discussions occasionally get a bit like > > a religious argument, which is a shame because they have both done a > > great job, but with different approaches - and why not? They serve > > different needs. > > > You have probably read this already but I found this tremendously > > useful to understand GAE, which in turn helped me understand the > > choices I was trying to make (the Objectify reference isn't a plug - > > it is just a very well written article) > > >http://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/wiki/Concepts > > > Good luck - it would be interesting to know what you decide in the > > end ... > > > On Apr 25, 5:42 am, bufferings <bufferi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Hi > > > > I like Slim3.http://sites.google.com/site/slim3appengine/ > > > > -- > > > 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-j...@googlegroups.com. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-appengine-java%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > > For more options, visit this group athttp:// > > groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > > -- > > 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-j...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com<google-appengine-java%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. > > -- > 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-j...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en. -- 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-j...@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.
