Well, I've submitted 2 or 3 tickets to their support team last week
and haven't heard back yet. Perhaps I'm doing something wrong.
As far as how our app did on the app-engine: it was pretty smooth. I
think the main issue we ran into was the 10 writes per entity group
per second. I think that
Thanks for the reply James,
No, I can't do the read and the write in the same tx because I am
doing a non-id based query on a different entity group in between my
read and my write. But I think I've resolved the issue.
It seems that when I don't do the detatch the issue is gone and the
://code.google.com/p/datanucleus-appengine/issues/detail?id=171
On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 1:09 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
hmmm I think I may have installed the patch wrong perhaps. I
still get the same error.
I'm using the same code I sent you for the test case Max. Do you see
any tell
at 11:09 AM, Max Ross (Google)
maxr+appeng...@google.com wrote:
Sure, sorry it was such a headache for you. When I've got a fix ready
I'll let you know.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 10:57 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
good point, I kinda got lost in the exceptions I was getting :)
I
everything by 1 relative to its current
value, but the datastore doesn't support this type of relative update, so
ends up doing one write per entity whose index needs shifting. So in short,
don't do it this way. :-)
Max
On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 9:42 PM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote
, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
do SortedSets suffer from the same problem? In particular, I could
define a displayOrder property that was rather sparse (every 10th int
or something: 10, 20, 30 etc.) and if I needed to insert something
between the first and second (which shouldn't
to be missing something. :(
thanks,
-bryce
On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 8:54 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks a million Max, I've been on the road for a few days but I'm looking
forward to trying this out when I get back. Thanks for the link Jonathan.
-bryce
On Dec 11, 2009 6:50
, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
That's great news Ma...
On Dec 8, 2009 5:20 PM, Max Ross (Google)
maxr+appeng...@google.commaxr%2bappeng...@google.com
maxr%2bappeng...@google.com maxr%252bappeng...@google.com
wrote:I've filed bug
http://code.google.com/p/datanucleus-appengine
be that different.
Hope this helps,
Max
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:15 PM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for filing that Max.
I'm kind of interested in your findings because there is another place
where I'm doing about the same thing (i.e. making a RatePlan instance
a direct child
No worries Max, I'm using 1.2.6 right now, so the multiple instance bug
isn't an issue right now. Whenever you get to it is fine. As always I
appreciate your input.
Thanks
-bryce
On Dec 8, 2009 10:14 AM, Max Ross (Google)
maxr+appeng...@google.commaxr%2bappeng...@google.com
wrote:
Hi Bryce,
I
It's all good, we're just trying to get to the bottom of the issue. I'm sure
the use of the word enhancer was just contextual. You have indeed
demonstrated that datanucleus isn't complaining. We're all friends here :)
thanks for helping us narrow the the root cause of the problem down.
Thanks,
/detail?id=169 to track
the problem with non-persistent base classes. I have a fix in the works.
I'll be posting a release candidate with this fix and hopefully a few others
in the next day or two.
Thanks,
Max
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:29 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
It's all good
Activity.ratePlans or
Bundle.ratePlans to be an unowned relationship and just store the Key of the
RatePlan rather than the RatePlan itself. Please give that a try and let me
know how it goes.
Thanks,
Max
On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 10:19 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
No worries Max, I'm using
well, I should clarify:
BaseBean used to just hold the field id:
private Key id;
public Key getId()
{
return id;
}
public void setId(Key id)
{
this.id = id;
}
and subclasses would override this method and put the appropriate JDO
annotations in. I was doing this because inheritance of
here. If the
spec says that you can have a base class that has methods/fields
overriden by persistence capable subclasses, then this looks like a
bug to me.
thanks,
-bryce
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:39 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
well, I should clarify:
BaseBean used to just hold
right, we're certainly on the same page on what should/shouldn't be
persisted. I have that override on every single class that subclasses
BaseBean. I would never expect JDO/datanucleus or any other framework
for that matter to magically persist a field in a non-peristable
super class. That's
exception you're getting is most likely the result of a
separate bug. Here's a thread with the workaround:
https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java/browse_thread/thread/241f366dde05f9f3#
Max
On Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 1:41 AM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
right, we're certainly
that
demonstrates the incorrect behavior. A unit test is preferable because I
can just drop it into my own test framework and run it, but I'll take
whatever format you can manage.
Thanks,
Max
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:18 PM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
yeah, I didn't see
the GAE isn't cross-compiling, javac is doing the compiling (the real
java compiler), so it's kind of a moot argument. The point is, the
system runs java, not g-java, not pseudo-java, it's java. It just
doesn't have all the libraries you want. That's all. It's written in
the Java programming
be ideal, but if you're not a position to write one then just a simple
standalone servlet should suffice.
Thanks,
Max
On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 1:00 PM, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
that is both a type-o and it was missing :) It was missing from my
test code, but it was present in my
with its
fields from the query automatically...as in the case with the embeds
from your examples. Any ideas?
On Nov 5, 1:40 pm, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
here's a really good talk about how objects are mapped into the
BigTable datastore and how relationships are actually represented
that I'm not getting and it has
to do with how objects are mapped onto the Big Table data store. Watching
the videos from Google I/O, those guys just wave their hands and make it
sound like it's all so easy, if you know what you're doing.
bryce cottam wrote:
I don't think that duplicating
? Because I would like to have a child object of each for
the testing. Thanks!
On Oct 9, 12:06 pm, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote: FYI, this
video was hugely helpful fo...
On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 10:46 AM, James H james.hollier...@gmail.com
wrote:Ylmz, thats how...
... read more »- Hide
pm, bryce cottam bcot...@gmail.com wrote:
FYI, this video was hugely helpful for me, and this information helps
me decide how to structure my data model to run best on the
app-engine, it's a Google I/O session on how the app-engine big table
implementation works:http://www.youtube.com
In my app (as in many apps I imagine) there are relationships that I
end up managing in the code.
For instance, a Parent class with a list of Child instances. In order
to make each child in it's own entity group, I have the list of
children defined on the Parent as
ListKey children;
and on the
25 matches
Mail list logo
