I'm still using the ping/time-out scheme from before the presence api existence, but the presence api makes it a lot easier. But since this new pricing turmoil started I have put my app engine projects on hold and haven't tried the presence api yet. I must admit that the new pricing makes it a lot harder to go for app engine than before.
BTW for channel several alternatives have been mentioned: http://pubnub.com and http://beaconpush.com/ . They charge per message so it's difficult to compare them with channel cost, depends the usage pattern too. On Jul 3, 2:07 pm, ksafez216 <mell...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is this channel reuse done by using Channel Presence to save tokens? > I still haven't found a function to test if a token is still valid? > > I was experiencing channel disconnects when the user shuts down their > browsers even if the channel was only opened for a few minutes. So > this means we will get charged a ton if people visit the website many > times a day for very short periods of time. > > I just have to say that the new Channel Pricing scheme is way out of > control! Just do some simple calculations and you'll see that the > costs will be huge for 1000's of users. This is such awesome > technology, but this new pricing will price out a bunch of aspiring > developers who don't have tons of extra money to spend. > > I now feel a bit swindled. Most likely I will switch to EC2, since I > can install the APE Project on an instance, which provides the same > functionality as Channel API *without* per channel costs. It will > save me tons of money! > > Now I have wasted a ton of my time developing for GAE-specific > platform. A bit of a slap in the face for loyalty. Damn you > Google! :) > > On Jul 2, 8:08 pm, Gijsbert <gijsbert.de.h...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > One channel gives one connection between one browser and app engine, > > so for a 1 on 1 game you would need 2. > > But, the current channels are valid for 2 hours and can be reused > > after the one browsers stops needing it in another browser (you need > > to do that reuse yourself). I don't know if this will be the same in > > thenewcharging model. > > > On Jul 2, 3:43 pm, Everson Alves da Silva <khron...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > So, for a 1 vs 1 game, can one pool the channels? opening anewchannel for > > > each game session would be very expensive. -- 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.
