Hopefully the initial complaint is not lost in the emotion of some of the posts. An application which performs 200 read requests per day per user, with 1000 users at 20-50K per read would likely get a ton of warnings and may even be shut down. The assumption being made by Google appears to be with the intent of building everything so that it can scale to tens of thousands of users/requests but some applications will just never be that large.
My idea would be to increase the thresholds significantly for classes or urls' that require user login. There is almost no chance an application would get slashdotted if the costly requests required login. This would give google time to see that there was significant interest growing in an application that might have trouble scaling and notify the owner. I think this would achieve a greater level of flexibility. On Tue, Sep 23, 2008 at 9:33 AM, Wooble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On Sep 23, 12:15 am, gg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Agreed. The problem at Google is very simple and has two components. > > First, the engineers run the show and there is no rational voice at > > Google to point out to them when they do something that does not meet > > a real world demand (they make something stupid). And the second > > component is they still have a lot of money to blow so they can get > > away making things that do not meet market demand (writing stuff that > > does not work and is stupid). > > If they're so stupid, you're free to start a competing service and > steal all of their business. That's how the free market works. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
