This is pretty disappointing. Supporting what I have described is very
basic JPA. The whole point of having a specification is to avoid
vendor lock-in and the more I look at this, the more I wonder how
Google can truthfully say that they support JPA.
GAE needs to be more upfront about their lack of JPA support and
modification of the programming model.. I'm okay with doing what I
have detailed differently, but please don't call it JPA.
Thanks,
Rick
On Oct 13, 12:04 am, Stevko <andy.ste...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ah, if you want to do this with a relational model rather than a
> networked model, you would define your objects such that each is a root
> entity (and thereby ids can be type Long ). This is analogous to
> holding a foreign key rather than embedding the owned entity.
>
> @Entity
> public class Event {
> @Id
> @GeneratedValue(strategy=GenerationType.IDENTITY)
> Long _id;
>
> // store the id of the User rather than the User object itself.
> Long _host_id;
> ...
>
> }
>
> The hardest thing with proofing a model decision like this is scoping
> the transactions based on your use cases.
> Coordinating multiple separate transactions on separate entities makes
> for interesting roll-forward / rollback coding.
>
> re: design portability
> I believe DataNucleus supports MySQL. If you are going to use a ORM,
> you just have to make sure it is portable....
--
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.
