The internet is indeed a funny place. I did respond with a question on how to set this up but have received no answer?
Any ideas anyone? On Apr 6, 3:03 am, Paddy Foran <foran.pa...@gmail.com> wrote: > I'd just like to point out how funny it is that people keep banging on > for Google to respond, and in their banging on for Google to respond, > they missed Google's actual response. > > >> Is there any google staff who is responsible for GAE promotion and > >> technology to say something here? > > >> How can I access to my Google Apps via my own domain directly, e.g. > >> how can access via mail.my_domain.com instead of mail.google.com/a/ > >> my_domain.com? > > >One way to address this is to run a proxy server elsewhere, which will > >allow your site to have it's own unique IP, rather than the shared IPs > >of Google. > > >-Brett > >App Engine Team > > Please note the "App Engine Team" signature. That means Brett (at > least claims he) is from Google. > > Poor Brett was ignored, as people clamoured for Brett to comment. > > This is why I love the internet. It amuses me to no end. > > On Apr 6, 12:48 am, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > No company is willing to be a pawn in the game of politics between > > > Google and China. > > > That sounds reasonable, but what can Google do to stop the Chinese > > govt from blocking? > > > (1) Google can't tell the Chinese govt what to do. > > > (2) The Chinese govt appears to be technically competent and controls > > the relevant connections, both from the outside and from internal > > datacenters. > > > (3) Google can propose agreements, but China is a soverign entity and > > and can do what it pleases wrt internal matters. (Other posters have > > suggested that buying dinner for the appropriate official would cause > > the blocking to go away. I don't see why the Chinese govt would find > > such an agreement binding.) > > > Yes, one can argue that Google "needs" the Chinese govt to not block, > > but that doesn't imply that Google can do anything to stop the Chinese > > govt from blocking. Google's needs do not obligate the Chinese govt. > > > On Apr 5, 3:16 pm, WallyDD <shaneb...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Google is more or less obligated to solve this issue. > > > > No company is willing to be a pawn in the game of politics between > > > Google and China. > > > Name a single company (that has any international presence) who would > > > be willing to use GAE knowing full well that it is blocked in its > > > current form? > > > This issue has nothing to do with the Chinese government and there is > > > no way Google will point the finger at them. > > > > Perhaps google can also take on all the other countries that are > > > blocking GAE and while they are at it they can point fingers at > > > corporate america and their firewalls? > > > You have to remember that at the moment this is a "preview release". > > > > I don't really understand why you persist with this argument. You have > > > raised some valid points which should be looked at and considered in > > > the scheme of things but most of the diatribe you present here seems > > > aimed at China/Chinese Government. I have always found prejudices > > > cloud peoples judgement. > > > > To sumarise how this problem will probably be viewed; > > > Google created a dns based system (for GAE addressing) which puts > > > everything though ghs.google.com. This system works really well and > > > from my experience it was very clever and efficient. However it has an > > > issue with firewalls that got overlooked. Google has just recently > > > been made aware of this problem. > > > > On Apr 5, 12:53 pm, Andy Freeman <ana...@earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > > Feel free to hair-split the word "obligation". > > > > > It's the plain meaning of the word. I apologise for not knowing that > > > > you didn't know what it meant when you wrote that Google had an > > > > obligation to make GAE available in China. Are there other statements > > > > that you made without understanding their meaning? > > > > > China availability issue is one of the few issues where folks claim > > > > that/act like Google has an obligation even though it's an issue where > > > > Google has very little capability to change things. > > > > > > That's why I want to hear from a Google representative on their plan. > > > > > I predict that if Google says anything, it will be roughly equivalent > > > > to "we're doing what we can". At that point, you'll have to decide if > > > > the results, which will vary with the whim of the Chinese govt, are > > > > adequate for your purposes. > > > > > Of course, if you're better at dealing with the Chinese govt than > > > > Google is.... > > > > > > Now just accept that fact and act accordingly. > > > > > And the basis for this order is... > > > > > On Apr 4, 6:11 pm, Andy <selforgani...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > I'm someone who understands that obligations come from laws and > > > > > > contracts. Feel free to point to the relevant chapter and verse > > > > > > that > > > > > > > However, absent a contract and/or a law, Google isn't obligated to > > > > > > make GAE applications visible in China. > > > > > > Feel free to hair-split the word "obligation". > > > > > > Does Google have the legal obligation to solve this problem? No. Just > > > > > like Google doesn't have any legal obligation to improve this service > > > > > or add any new features. Does that mean users should stop posting any > > > > > thread that's about improving GAE? > > > > > > Does that mean you're going to start polluting every single thread in > > > > > this forum by posting your 'Google has no legal obligation to do this" > > > > > drivel? > > > > > > > Good for you. And Google may, or may not, offer such an option. > > > > > > Note > > > > > > "may not" - they're under no obligation to do so. (I don't presume > > > > > > to > > > > > > know the risks and costs of offering such an option. After all, > > > > > > China > > > > > > can block at the edge of the data centers, impose conditions, or > > > > > > even > > > > > > shut them down.) > > > > > > Another zero-value drivel. > > > > > > Yes Google may or may not offer that solution, just like they may or > > > > > may not offer any solution to any other problems raised in this forum > > > > > > That's why I want to hear from a Google representative on their plan. > > > > > Your speculation on what Google may or may not do is just that, > > > > > worthless speculation that serves no purpose in this discussion. > > > > > > You're right to not "presume to know" though, seeing how you don't > > > > > know anything in this matter. > > > > > > Now just accept that fact and act accordingly.- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
