Hi,
I don't think it's a good approach to explain the datastore relationship
types by using tree-related terms, because a tree implies that a child
could be accessed only by it's parent and that is absolutely contrary to
the datastore. I think "owned" and "unowned" are the best attributes for
describing datastore relationship types.
On 01/27/2010 11:43 PM, Rusty Wright wrote:
When I'm learning something new one of the things that slows me down
is poor documentation. I think the app engine java documentation
Storing Data could be improved if it used consistent terminology in
the area of entity groups, which is a crucial part of understanding
how the data store works.
Sometimes the documentation uses the terms owned and unowned
relationships, sometimes the terms parent and child. I'm thinking
that the owned and unowned terms aren't the best choice since you
can't use them to say anything about a child. To my way of thinking
an owned relationship is a parented relationship. But then you can't
say that an unowned relationship is an unparented relationship since
the owned entity could have a parent. Perhaps you could call it a
nonparented relationship? Or maybe a nonparenting relationship?
Overall I much prefer the terms parent and child; the data is stored
with a tree structure and parent and child are the natural terms when
talking about trees. I also think that if the terms parent and child
were used instead of owned (and unowned) that it could help people
more quickly understand that the structure in the data store is a tree.
--
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 [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected].
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.
