Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > > I'm not against key ids in general. The problem with ids in App Engine > is that they can't be set manually which means backups become much > more difficult and when restoring a backup (or converting data from > SQL) URLs have to be changed (because the id can't be retained).
absolutely, we agree. > Couldn't you allow for overriding ids while at the same time assigning > free ones automatically? definitely! we've considered this internally for a while. we'd love to provide operations for advanced users to manage the id namespace, e.g. NextId(), SetNextId(), and ReserveIds(), which would all take a root entity as their argument. it's not a high priority for us right now, but we would like to do it. as usual, feel free to file a feature request, or repurpose the one you filed, http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=1003 . > Alternatively, would it be possible to configure models such that the > datastore assigns an unused key_name instead of an id? Is there really > such a huge performance problem with that? I'd accept it any time > because the price of using key ids is just too high for us (it could > be seen as some kind of vendor lock-in). this would be backward incompatible, since most existing entities use ids, so it's more unlikely. migrating would be doable, but painful. we're definitely interested in the id managament calls described above, though! --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
