The advantage of Objectify's key management is the generified Key<?> class, which helps keep your code straight.
Jeff On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 5:16 AM, Christian Goudreau <goudreau.christ...@gmail.com> wrote: > I didn't try, but I'm sure that if you set a Key field that doesn't exist in > the datastore, it will be stored with the key you wanted. If I recall, store > only auto assign a key when the key field is null or doesn't exist. > @Key > private long id; > Christian > > On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 7:59 AM, David Sowerby <david.sowe...@virgin.net> > wrote: >> >> 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. >> > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
