That's a problem of your own creation. A multitude of choice is one of the benefits of any Java platform. For instance, you mention that Objectify seems great but may not be supported 1-2 years down the line. This is an argument that you can apply to just about any open source library or framework in existence. Even paid tools, for instance, can be deprecated. You're eager optimizing your support problem, when really the problem you should be solving is "what do I need to build? How do I get there?"
In a previous life, I made the mistake of worrying about this with regards to using jQuery (silly, right?) and the Google Charts API. Instead, I built what is quite possibly one of the worst Javascript frameworks ever, and the project shipped late. I should have focused on the project, not phantom concerns about ongoing support for open source code. -- Ikai Lan Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine Blogger: http://googleappengine.blogspot.com Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/appengine Twitter: http://twitter.com/app_engine On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:50 PM, George Moschovitis < [email protected]> wrote: > It 's counter productive for me, for the simple reason that I cannot > choose which API to > use: > > - JPA seems to be the standard but it's geared towards RDBMS > - JDO is 'older' but better supports non relational DBs > - Both of the above seem abandoned (for example they use a very old > Datanucleus version) > - the Low level is too ..low level with no support of static typing > (one of the benefits of using Java) > - Twig has interesting features but seems to lack momentum > - Objectify seems to have more momentum, but is not standard, dunno if > this will be supported in a year or two > - etc, etc..." > > As you can see I am on a deadlock, I cannot decide which API to use > and frankly all of the available options leave a lot > to be desired. > > New features like (Channel API, Reserved instances, etc) may be cool, > but really GAE/J needs a solid, dependable database story... > > just my 2 cents... > -g. > > > On Dec 3, 8:46 pm, "Ikai Lan (Google)" > <[email protected]<ikai.l%[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > We'll investigate ways to keep JDO/JPA up to date. > > > > I disagree about the fact that having community driven libraries is > counter > > productive. In fact, this is a sign of a thriving community. When > evaluating > > our support of these libraries, we realized that we could have done a > better > > job helping the folks building great tools for App Engine users. We've > taken > > steps to better involve framework and library developers, and going > forward, > > we will be having higher expectations for our own involvement helping > these > > developers be successful. > > > > -- > > Ikai Lan > > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine > > Blogger:http://googleappengine.blogspot.com > > Reddit:http://www.reddit.com/r/appengine > > Twitter:http://twitter.com/app_engine > > > > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:37 AM, George Moschovitis < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > We haven't abandoned JDO/JPA, but we may emphasize the low-level APIs > > > going > > > > forward. You'll always get low-level features first. The mismatch > between > > > > datastore features and relational database features is starting to > really > > > > grow. > > > > > I understand that emphasizing on the Low Level API makes sense, but > > > some work on JDO/JPA would be reasonable. > > > There is a lot of stuff that could be implemented on top of the > > > standard APIs. > > > > > Moreover, you could consider offering a custom Higher Level API, maybe > > > something similar to the Python version. > > > Having 10 slightly different community driven APIs is not productive. > > > > > regards, > > > -g. > > > > > > One thing we'll plan on doing is to work more closely with framework > and > > > > library implementors to make sure they have what they need to build > > > toolkits > > > > that better mesh with non-relational datastores. For instance, take a > > > look > > > > at our recent article about Django: > > > > > >http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/django-nonrel.html > > > > > > (BTW, if you are a Python developer, please do not use > app-engine-patch. > > > > It's deprecated). > > > > > > The original approach we took and encouraged was to bend existing > > > toolkits > > > > to work with GAE to adhere to standards. We'll still do this when > > > possible, > > > > but we're more pragmatic than dogmatic about standards. In some > cases, > > > such > > > > as the datastore, it may make more sense for us to help developers > build > > > > toolkits that can keep up with the trend of non-relational > persistence. > > > > > > -- > > > > Ikai Lan > > > > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine > > > > Blogger:http://googleappengine.blogspot.com > > > > Reddit:http://www.reddit.com/r/appengine > > > > Twitter:http://twitter.com/app_engine > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:38 AM, Eugene D <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Great question. It would be very helpful to get a status report on > > > > > this as well as a roadmap for either this library or any planned > > > > > alternatives > > > > > > > On Nov 23, 3:48 pm, George Moschovitis < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Are there any plans to resume work on datanucleus-appengine? > > > > > > > > The progress on this lib seems to have stopped 6 months ago and > there > > > > > > still a lot of related issues in the tracker: > > > > > > > > update to the latest version of datanucleus, support for unowned > > > > > > relations, support for more jdo/jpa features, jpa docs and > more... > > > > > > > > is there a roadmap for this important library? > > > > > > > > thanks, > > > > > > -g. > > > > > > > -- > > > > > 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]<google-appengine-java%[email protected]><google-appengine-java%2B > [email protected]><google-appengine-java%2B > > > [email protected]> > > > > > . > > > > > 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 > > > [email protected]. > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > [email protected]<google-appengine-java%[email protected]><google-appengine-java%2B > [email protected]> > > > . > > > 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 > [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<google-appengine-java%[email protected]> > . > 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 [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.
