[appengine-java] Re: Disappointment about JPA relationships :(

2010-10-25 Thread Simon
I agree the documentation isn't fabulous for JPA, in that a vast
majority of it focuses on the JDO implementation and you end up having
to work out which bits of DataNucleus documentation should be used and
is relevant for GAE.  However, to give the team a bit of credit the
restrictions you are talking about are clearly documented at
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/datastore/transactions.html.

Having been through the pain with trying a JPA-based implementation
and reading through these message groups, it is quite clear that JDO
and JPA are just a very poor fit for the underlying datastore - using
the low-level API, or one of the open-source libraries such as
Objectify, Twig or Slim3 is probably a safer bet.

On Oct 25, 4:01 am, Shawn Brown big.coffee.lo...@gmail.com wrote:
  I'm just here because i feel i need to rant a little. I came here expecting
  way too much.

 Been there with JDO -- the docs are not adequate.

 I don't know your exact requirements but I suspect you'll find many on
 this list who found objectify to be the simplest convenient interface
 to the Google App Engine 
 datastore.http://code.google.com/p/objectify-appengine/

 Shawn

-- 
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.



[appengine-java] Re: Disappointment about JPA relationships :(

2010-10-25 Thread Matthieu Bertin
That is very true. The page you show is quite explaining why i got
theses exceptions, but i wouldn't have understood anything before i ran
into theses exceptions, and not even understanding if this page was JDO
or JPA documentation.


Anyway, i got it now and i'm back on tracks, but i would have gladly
enjoyed not living my last 10 days. ^^

-- 
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.



[appengine-java] Re: Disappointment about JPA relationships :(

2010-10-24 Thread Vikas Hazrati
Hi Matthieu,

You are right, you need some conditioning and then you need to work
around the limitations of working with relationships around JPA. Then
finally you tend to realize more and more that may be you are better
off with unowned relationships

Here are the issues that we faced and tried to resolve http://wp.me/pNh6u-6b

Regards | Vikas
www.inphina.com

On Oct 23, 9:01 pm, Matthieu Bertin berz...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hello,

 I'm just here because i feel i need to rant a little. I came here
 expecting way too much. I'm of course blaming me for being way too
 optimistic but i also believe ranting against google is somehow
 justifiable, and i'll explain why.

 I've started porting an application on Google App engine and i'm now
 sick of discovering exceptions like :

 - Detected attempt to establish PictureThread(28) as the parent of
 Picture(27) but the entity identified by Picture(27) has already been
 persisted without a parent. A parent cannot be established or changed
 once an object has been persisted
 - cannot operate on two differents types of entities in the same
 request/transaction'. Your documentation has headed me in the wrong
 direction; all you mention is 'unowned relationships' and 'many-to-many
 relationships' are not supported.
 Please fix that. Give us the real limitations on the documentation!
 There is no mention of one to one limitations or 'handling multiple
 entities in same transaction' limitations anywhere.

 It would totally be understandable not to mention theses limitations
 when JDBC APIs were created, but nowadays, when you mention 'JPA', this
 kind of limitations HAVE to be mentionned.

-- 
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.



Re: [appengine-java] Re: Disappointment about JPA relationships :(

2010-10-24 Thread sambandamn dam
*Sir, Thanks for your guidelines. Thankyou.
*
On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:14 PM, Vikas Hazrati vhazr...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Matthieu,

 You are right, you need some conditioning and then you need to work
 around the limitations of working with relationships around JPA. Then
 finally you tend to realize more and more that may be you are better
 off with unowned relationships

 Here are the issues that we faced and tried to resolve
 http://wp.me/pNh6u-6b

 Regards | Vikas
 www.inphina.com

 On Oct 23, 9:01 pm, Matthieu Bertin berz...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hello,
 
  I'm just here because i feel i need to rant a little. I came here
  expecting way too much. I'm of course blaming me for being way too
  optimistic but i also believe ranting against google is somehow
  justifiable, and i'll explain why.
 
  I've started porting an application on Google App engine and i'm now
  sick of discovering exceptions like :
 
  - Detected attempt to establish PictureThread(28) as the parent of
  Picture(27) but the entity identified by Picture(27) has already been
  persisted without a parent. A parent cannot be established or changed
  once an object has been persisted
  - cannot operate on two differents types of entities in the same
  request/transaction'. Your documentation has headed me in the wrong
  direction; all you mention is 'unowned relationships' and 'many-to-many
  relationships' are not supported.
  Please fix that. Give us the real limitations on the documentation!
  There is no mention of one to one limitations or 'handling multiple
  entities in same transaction' limitations anywhere.
 
  It would totally be understandable not to mention theses limitations
  when JDBC APIs were created, but nowadays, when you mention 'JPA', this
  kind of limitations HAVE to be mentionned.

 --
 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.comgoogle-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 at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.