It's a mixed bag with regards to Google internal projects. There are folks using JDO/JPA, and there are folks who go straight to the Low-Level API.
I spoke with one internal team who mentioned an interest in Objectify but were concerned it could be abandoned because they had had a similar experience with appengine-patch for Django. Next time I see those guys, I'll let them know that the Objectify community seems to be thriving. The Slim3 community is also doing pretty well, but it seems like most of the useful posts are in Japanese. Ultimately, that's the risk you run with any kind of software. At least if it's open source, you can pick at it and keep the bits you need running. I'm personally hoping we can better support framework developers and just keep the Low Level API very tight and consistent. Ikai Lan Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine Blog: http://googleappengine.blogspot.com Twitter: http://twitter.com/app_engine Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/appengine On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Andrew <[email protected]> wrote: > I couldn't agree more with Jeff. JDO/JPA on GAE is pants for any real > project. > > I am part of a 4 person development team that recently completed a > fairly hefty 6 month GAE project built using GAE, GWT and Guice. We > used JDO/Datanucleus for the persistence technology which caused > significant problems across the project. > > As well as the issues that Jeff points out, simple things like IDE > integration (predominantly Eclipse) with Datanucleus never seemed to > work very well. Getting transaction demarcation to work with how the > store 'actually' works is also practically impossible. We burnt a lot > of days getting around a mass of silly little issues for no real > benefit. > > To be clear, in standard relational environments we'll use Hibernate > (et al) almost exclusively as an ORM, but, in my view, trying to use > JDO/JPA on GAE is at this point in time a frivolous exercise that > ultimately will heavily limit what you can do on the platform (not > discounting the great work done be those that did port the standard > over). It also lures you into this familiar relational way of looking > at persistence problems which really does not, in any way, translate > to how the datastore actually works. > > I'd be very interested to know how Google's internal projects work > with the store -- as presumably, it's going to be a fairly similar > interface -- but, if we were starting from scratch, I'd lobby very > hard for using the low-level API on its lonesome (it's already a > pretty clean service). > > On Apr 5, 6:22 pm, SkYlEsS <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks you so much for all this responses everybody ! > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
