Re: App Engine port

2009-02-10 Thread David Stenglein

Malcolm, Russell, James,

Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my questions.

I think that these questions are rooted in the unrealistic idea that
something that
looks like it would be good relationship- or PR-wise is also a good development
priority.

As I expressed, I've simply thought that GAE would be a no-brainer, but that is
obviously not the case when viewed against other development work with more
concrete demand.

Now it is time for me to put-up or shut-up. Hopefully it will not be
the latter (and
making a post like this can be a good motivator)!

-Dave

On Mon, Feb 9, 2009 at 11:20 PM, Malcolm Tredinnick
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:51 -0500, David Stenglein wrote:
>> I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding
>> App Engine? It would
>> seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A
>> lot of people don't know Django and at a previous job, I was able to
>> say that "Google chose django" for App Engine to help validate my use
>> of it.
>
> To echo everybody else; There simply isn't any reticence.
>
>>
>> If so, why the seeming lack of excitement around App Engine? Are
>> google engineers not involved in the community?
>
> Possibly. If they are, they aren't posting from their @google.com
> addresses, as far as I can see on this list.
>
> I would point out that the original GAE integration with Django could
> have been implemented quite differently and a lot of this could have
> Just Worked out of the box. However, there were reasonably (not
> perfectly) valid corporate and legal reasons why Google chose not to
> and/or couldn't do that. So the thing works both ways. Google made some
> choices and this thread is now about working around those choices to
> integrate more nicely.
>
> Regards,
> Malcolm
>
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: App Engine port

2009-02-06 Thread David Stenglein

I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding
App Engine? It would
seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A
lot of people don't know Django and at a previous job, I was able to
say that "Google chose django" for App Engine to help validate my use
of it.

I just glanced at the app engine project page and there is even an
article about porting your apps to run in any standard Django
environment.

It may be coincidental, but I thought that a regularized release
schedule (rather than just "use SVN") seemed to come about after the
App Engine announcement.

Has App Engine created a noticeable increase in developers interested
in using Django?

If so, why the seeming lack of excitement around App Engine? Are
google engineers not involved in the community?

Sorry to be posing so many questions, but I've found this aspect of
Django development particularly puzzling.

-Dave


On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 7:10 AM, Russell Keith-Magee
 wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Waldemar Kornewald  
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Russell,
>>
>> On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee  wrote:
>>> I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the
>>> django.db.models interface to be fully independent of SQL" is much
>>> more likely to get core developer support. We (the Django core) will
>>> be very receptive to any suggestions on how django.db.models needs to
>>> be modified in order to support non-SQL backends -- especially if you
>>> can demonstrate that your suggestions aren't just theoretical, but are
>>> clearly required by an actual backend implementation.
>>
>> Agreed, making models SQL-independent is the most important (and most
>> complicated) part. Do the people secretly working on App Engine
>> integration try to implement that part?
>
> I haven't seen their code, so I can't say for certain, but I imagine
> that they have a small collection of patches for the main Django tree
> that enables their backend to be independent of SQL.
>
>>> If you are maintaining an external project handling AppEngine support
>>> for Django, then that project's wiki is the right place for
>>> documentation about AppEngine support within Django. While AppEngine
>>> support isn't part of Django's core, Django's wiki isn't the right
>>> place to be providing AppEngine specific instructions - especially if
>>> the first instruction is "install this third party project that isn't
>>> formally affiliated with the Django project at this time".
>>
>> I can't find anything like that in my wiki page. It describes what is
>> necessary for a completely new port that has practically nothing to do
>> with app-engine-patch apart from being able to reuse some of the
>> existing code. It could be useful for any porting effort. If I keep it
>> in my wiki nobody else can work on that page. It's almost useless that
>> way.
>
> Ok - sounds like they could be some good contributions. I just wanted
> to make sure you were not planning on making the Django wiki the home
> of the "how to use app-engine-patch" documentation.
>
> Yours,
> Russ Magee %-)
>
> >
>

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Django developers" group.
To post to this group, send email to django-developers@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
django-developers+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---