http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2196465/app-engine-jdo-schema-change-updating-new-non-nullable-value
The above was the post i was referring too. we wanted to keep our options open and hence didn't get married to objectify. Now its a pain. Siena looks pretty good, but third party tools would be painful. Any news if GAE will listen to the please by DataNucleus folks and allow support for defaults as it looks they already support it. On Aug 2, 11:01 am, Johan Euphrosine <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Manish, > > Can you link the corresponding Stack Overflow question so we can get a > bit more context. > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 31, 2011 at 6:47 AM, miwcoder <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > We are in the process of going live with our app but struggling > > with schema changes. We intentionally adopted JDO as we wanted to keep > > changes minimum in case we need to port. But it is biting us now as it > > is a nightmare to change the schema. We are trying to add only Object > > types as suggested in one stackoverflow post but the changes still > > throws tons of exceptions. > > > How do we handle it? Also is Objectify the only way out? If so how > > much work it is to port objectify code? > > > any help is appreciated. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > "Google App Engine" 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 > > athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- > Johan Euphrosine (proppy) > Developer Programs Engineer > Google Developer Relations -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" 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?hl=en.
