date:20110510

Discussion and some responses from Google Product Management here: 
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/VCYbRH4WWBI/discussion

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

Re: [appengine-java] Feelings about new pricing model

2011-05-10 Thread JT

Moving away, hosting ourselves on RISK based architecture like
guruplug/dreamplug. Cost less than a dollar per server per month :)
On May 10, 2011 5:18 PM, Marcel Overdijk marceloverd...@gmail.com wrote:
 Today Google announced the new pricing model to be effective later
 this year (http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-
 google-app-engine.html).

 I always like the pay per usage model compared to the pay per
 instance model.
 Because of this change by Google, other platforms - like VMware's
 CloudFoundry - might be on the same pricing level and offer more
 advantage as they are more flexible in terms of frameworks supported.

 I'm wondering how other developers feel about this change in pricing
 model.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Google App Engine for Java group.
 To post to this group, send email to
google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

[appengine-java] UserService

2011-05-10 Thread WillSpecht

Does anyone have any good User Service code that doesn't use the
Google API?  We recently discovered that some people don't trust the
google login api, enough so that it is a deal breaker for using our
service.  Before I write my own User Service, I was wondering if there
is a good open option or if anyone can suggest an article that I
should read before trying to do this.  Security is probably my weakest
domain (the reason i wanted to trust google with it in the first place)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

[appengine-java] JDO and HRD

2011-05-10 Thread Cláudio Coelho

This might be a silly question, but if I'm using JDO in my app, what do I 
need to do to start using High Replication Datastore (besides activating 
when I create the app of course)?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

[appengine-java] Re: JDO and HRD

2011-05-10 Thread Brandon Donnelson

Nothing has to be done with JDO to make the app HR. Although when you create 
an app in the dashboard you will have to select HR in the beginning. Once 
you have created a Master/Slave you will not be able to upgrade that app to 
HR. 

Brandon Donnelson
http://gwt-examples.googlecode.com

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

[appengine-java] Getting class cast exception in BackendServersFilter after 1.5 sdk update

2011-05-10 Thread Nischal

I have struts 2.0 as the framework. I just upgraded to 1.5 and in the local 
development server I'm getting the below error : 

java.lang.ClassCastException: java.math.BigDecimal cannot be cast to 
java.lang.String
at 
com.google.appengine.tools.development.BackendServersFilter.doRedirectedServerRequest(BackendServersFilter.java:276)
at 
com.google.appengine.tools.development.BackendServersFilter.doFilter(BackendServersFilter.java:103)
at 
org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler$CachedChain.doFilter(ServletHandler.java:1157)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.ServletHandler.handle(ServletHandler.java:388)
at 
org.mortbay.jetty.security.SecurityHandler.handle(SecurityHandler.java:216)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.SessionHandler.handle(SessionHandler.java:182)
at org.mortbay.jetty.handler.ContextHandler.handle(ContextHandler.java:765)
at org.mortbay.jetty.webapp.WebAppContext.handle(WebAppContext.java:418)
at 
com.google.apphosting.utils.jetty.DevAppEngineWebAppContext.handle(DevAppEngineWebAppContext.java:70)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.Dispatcher.forward(Dispatcher.java:327)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.Dispatcher.forward(Dispatcher.java:126)
at 
org.apache.struts2.dispatcher.ServletDispatcherResult.doExecute(ServletDispatcherResult.java:139)
at 
org.apache.struts2.dispatcher.StrutsResultSupport.execute(StrutsResultSupport.java:178)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.executeResult(DefaultActionInvocation.java:348)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:253)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.DefaultWorkflowInterceptor.doIntercept(DefaultWorkflowInterceptor.java:221)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.MethodFilterInterceptor.intercept(MethodFilterInterceptor.java:86)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:224)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:223)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStack.java:455)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:221)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.validator.ValidationInterceptor.doIntercept(ValidationInterceptor.java:150)
at 
org.apache.struts2.interceptor.validation.AnnotationValidationInterceptor.doIntercept(AnnotationValidationInterceptor.java:48)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.MethodFilterInterceptor.intercept(MethodFilterInterceptor.java:86)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:224)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:223)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStack.java:455)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:221)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.ConversionErrorInterceptor.intercept(ConversionErrorInterceptor.java:123)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:224)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:223)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStack.java:455)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:221)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.ParametersInterceptor.doIntercept(ParametersInterceptor.java:184)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.MethodFilterInterceptor.intercept(MethodFilterInterceptor.java:86)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:224)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:223)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStack.java:455)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:221)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.interceptor.StaticParametersInterceptor.intercept(StaticParametersInterceptor.java:105)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:224)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:223)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStack.java:455)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:221)
at 
org.apache.struts2.interceptor.CheckboxInterceptor.intercept(CheckboxInterceptor.java:83)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:224)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation$2.doProfiling(DefaultActionInvocation.java:223)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.util.profiling.UtilTimerStack.profile(UtilTimerStack.java:455)
at 
com.opensymphony.xwork2.DefaultActionInvocation.invoke(DefaultActionInvocation.java:221)
at

[appengine-java] Re: Feelings about new pricing model

I'm quite unhappy about the new pricing.  The pay per usage model
was the main reason I chose GAE.  On the old model, I could handle a
reasonable amount of traffic with just paying $9/month for getting 3
reserved instances.  Letting my users get loading requests is bad
since my loading requests take 10 seconds.  Now it looks like I'll
have to pay $45/month ($9/mo for premium + $36/mo for 1 reserved
instance), and even paying that much, my users will experience more
loading requests since there will only be 1 reserved instance instead
of 3.


On May 10, 2:25 pm, JT jem...@gmail.com wrote:
 Moving away, hosting ourselves on RISK based architecture like
 guruplug/dreamplug. Cost less than a dollar per server per month :)
 On May 10, 2011 5:18 PM, Marcel Overdijk marceloverd...@gmail.com wrote: 
 Today Google announced the new pricing model to be effective later
  this year (http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-
  google-app-engine.html).

  I always like the pay per usage model compared to the pay per
  instance model.
  Because of this change by Google, other platforms - like VMware's
  CloudFoundry - might be on the same pricing level and offer more
  advantage as they are more flexible in terms of frameworks supported.

  I'm wondering how other developers feel about this change in pricing
  model.

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

 Google App Engine for Java group. To post to this group, send email to

 google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send 
 email to

 google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit 
 this group at

 http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.









-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

[appengine-java] My app get broken today

2011-05-10 Thread Miroslav Genov



GAE Version: 1.3.8

My app was working in last 6 months without any problems, and now I'm getting 
the following error message:

I think that much more classes and methods are restricted now. 

com.google.inject.internal.ComputationException: 
com.google.inject.internal.ComputationException: 
com.google.inject.internal.ComputationException: 
java.lang.NullPointerException: Couldn't get a ClassLoader
at 
com.google.inject.internal.MapMaker$StrategyImpl.compute(MapMaker.java:553)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.MapMaker$StrategyImpl.compute(MapMaker.java:419)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.CustomConcurrentHashMap$ComputingImpl.get(CustomConcurrentHashMap.java:2041)
at com.google.inject.internal.FailableCache.get(FailableCache.java:46)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorInjectorStore.get(ConstructorInjectorStore.java:48)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.ConstructorBindingImpl.initialize(ConstructorBindingImpl.java:117)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.initializeJitBinding(InjectorImpl.java:381)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBinding(InjectorImpl.java:635)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.createJustInTimeBindingRecursive(InjectorImpl.java:567)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getJustInTimeBinding(InjectorImpl.java:166)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getBindingOrThrow(InjectorImpl.java:126)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorImpl.getInternalFactory(InjectorImpl.java:641)
at com.google.inject.internal.FactoryProxy.notify(FactoryProxy.java:43)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.BindingProcessor.runCreationListeners(BindingProcessor.java:238)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorBuilder.initializeStatically(InjectorBuilder.java:134)
at 
com.google.inject.internal.InjectorBuilder.build(InjectorBuilder.java:108)
at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:93)
at com.google.inject.Guice.createInjector(Guice.java:81)
at com.evo.adm.server.GuiceFactory.init(GuiceFactory.java:30)
at com.evo.adm.server.AdmBootstrap.getInjector(AdmBootstrap.java:53)
at 
com.google.inject.servlet.GuiceServletContextListener.contextInitialized(GuiceServletContextListener.java:43)
at 
com.evo.adm.server.AdmBootstrap.contextInitialized(AdmBootstrap.java:164)
at 
org.mortbay.jetty.handler.ContextHandler.startContext(ContextHandler.java:548)
at org.mortbay.jetty.servlet.Context.startContext(Context.java:136)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Google App Engine for Java group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine-java@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
google-appengine-java+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine-java?hl=en.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Multitenant Design and Indexes

2011-05-10 Thread Robert Kluin

Hi Prateek,
  The data in one namespace won't impact anything in another
namespace.  All indexes for all applications are stored in within a
single 'bigtable.'  Check out some of the datastore articles (or
google talks) on the datastore.
http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/storage_breakdown.html



Robert





On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 00:41, someone1 someo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks for the reply, however, how are the indexes handled in the
 backend? Is it just one index shared across the namespaces or does
 each namespace get its own index for the custom indexes I define? I
 understand as far as billing is concerned, it'll appear as a single
 index and I also understand I cannot query across all namespaces at
 once, but my question is more geared towards how much the data in one
 namespace will effect the data in another namespace using the same
 index.

 Thanks,
 Prateek

 On May 8, 11:36 pm, Robert Kluin robert.kl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Prateek,
   Your app gets 200 indexes.  You can use as many namespaces as you'd
 like, any custom indexes defined are available to each namespace.
 Note that you can not query across namespaces, however.

 Robert







 On Sun, May 8, 2011 at 12:29, someone1 someo...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hello,

  Are indexes between different namespaces shared or is a new index used
  for each namespace? If it is the latter, then is the 200 maximum set
  for the App or each namespace, or do separate indexes exists for each
  namespace, but I am only billed for unique indexes?

  Thanks,
  Prateek

  --
  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 
  athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

 --
 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.



-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Parent, childs and ancestor is

2011-05-10 Thread Cesare Montresor

Hi Pau,
if I understood correctly, your entities are connected by using
reference properties.

B  ref - A
C ref - A
D ref - B
E ref - B
etc etc

In this case you should be able to get his direct childs in a very
cheap way, buy using the the implicit proprieties created on the
entity A
(search:Relationship Model -
link:http://code.google.com/appengine/articles/modeling.html )

an idea of this implementation is (in python):
istanceOfA = db.Model.A().get(key)
childs = []
childs.extend(istanceOfA.B_set)
childs.extend(istanceOfA.C_set)
logging.info(childs)

Hope this help,
Cesare


On 10 May 2011 08:05, Pau andos...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi, I create a hirarchy data in datastore using parents. For example:
 A ... childs : B, C
 B ... childs : D, E
 C ... childs : F, G

 Now, I would like select childs of A using ANCESTOR IS, but the query return 
 all descendants (B, C, D, E, F and G). Do you know how I can retrieve only 
 the direct childs of A (B and C)?

 Thank you very much!

 Pau

 --
 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.


-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Parent, childs and ancestor is

2011-05-10 Thread Robert Kluin

Hi Pau,
  If you are using entity groups, you'll need to add a reference
property (or some similar idea) so that you can query for 'direct'
descendants, 'B' and 'C', of 'A'.


Robert






On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 18:05, Pau andos...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi, I create a hirarchy data in datastore using parents. For example:
 A ... childs : B, C
 B ... childs : D, E
 C ... childs : F, G

 Now, I would like select childs of A using ANCESTOR IS, but the query return 
 all descendants (B, C, D, E, F and G). Do you know how I can retrieve only 
 the direct childs of A (B and C)?

 Thank you very much!

 Pau

 --
 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.



-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Data / index quota usage

2011-05-10 Thread Richard Druce

Hope everyone is having a good day. We've just outgrown the free data
storage which Appengine kindly provides which is good but it looks like most
of our data is indexes as only 200M of the 1.1 G used is actual data /
metadata. Is this a normal ratio and are there any best practices we can use
to limit the growth of the index / data ratio?

Cheers,

Richard

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Error 500

2011-05-10 Thread Francois Masurel

Everything seems to be back to normal :-)

We'll keep an eye on it.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Problem enabling billing / increasing number of queues

2011-05-10 Thread Justin

Hi,

I have a brand new app [no usage yet] with 15 queues. When I deploy, I
get the Invalid queue configuration. Must be fewer than or equal to
10 entries message. No problem, let's enable billing. Been through
the billing procedure, got the confirmation email. Now I'm looking at
the 'Billing Settings' page on the dashboard; however once the
'updating billing' period has passed, I'm still set at 'Billing Free'
rather than 'Billing Enabled'; and consequently still can't deploy my
app due to the 10 queue limit. How do I get out of this loop ? Do I
need some traffic/hits before billing is enabled ?

Thanks!

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Cannot log in. Not authorized to access this application

2011-05-10 Thread Gopal Patel

http://appengine.google.com/a/awfullychocolate-bj.com

2011/5/10 Gordon  Teresa daoda...@gmail.com

 The same:(

 1. open http://appengine.google.com
 2. log in as gor...@awfullychocolate-bj.com (the domain admin account)
 3. unauthorized message again:-( (top-right corner display 
 gor...@awfullychocolate-bj.com, seems login successfully)



 2011/5/9 Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com

 Appengine.google.com Log in.  Don't go to the url you are. Select the
 domain. Administer it.


 -Original Message-
 From: daodao [mailto:daoda...@gmail.com]
 Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:08 PM
 To: Brandon Wirtz
 Subject: Re: Cannot log in. Not authorized to access this application

 Here're my steps:

 1. I logout all of my google accounts and restart browser 2. open page of
 http://appengine.google.com/a/awfullychocolate-bj.com
 3. I was redirected to a google login page. I login with admin account of
 my
 custom domain awfullychocoate-bj.com 4. The message prompted:
 Unauthorized,
 You are not authorized to access this application.

 At step 4, I can see my admin account of awfullychocolate-bj.comdisplalying
 at top-right corner, which means the login succeeded.
 I can access my mailbox through mail.awfullychocolate-bj.com.

 Just several weeks ago, I can reach my dashboard through above steps.

 Any helps?

 BTW, I can access my app through awfullysystem.awfullychocolate- bj.com.
 The
 app works fine. But I need access dashboard to make some changes to my
 data.

 On 5月9日, 下午2时52分, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
  Works better if you include the name of the app you need help with.
 
  Also make sure you are signed out of Google when you go to
  appengine.google.com .  Try using an Incognito window.
 
  From the error you are getting it doesn't sound like you are trying to
  log in to the dash board.  If you are locked out of the dashboard you
  should be able to recover your password.  If you locked yourself out
  of your deployed app, we can't help you, that's an
 Application/programming
 issue.
 
  -Brandon
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  -Original Message-
  From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
 
  [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of daodao
  Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:27 PM
  To: Google App Engine
  Subject: [google-appengine] Cannot log in. Not authorized to access
  this application
 
  I receive the message as follows when trying to log into my google
  apps appengine account.
 
  Unauthorized
  You are not authorized to access this application.
 
  I'm using custom domain. I have tried both appengine.google.com/a/
  mydomain and appengine.google.com.
 
  Any help?
 
  --
  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
 athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.


  --
 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.


-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Almost have a command line client working to post to the Blobstore without a browser ...

2011-05-10 Thread Jarrod Roberson

I have the following Python command line program that works just fine with 
my local GAE developer mode server, but when I deploy it to the actual GAE 
servers, it doesn't work, it doesn't find any blobs in the request?

Here is my upload servlet:

public class UploadServlet extends HttpServlet
{
private static final Logger log = 
Logger.getLogger(UploadServlet.class.getName());

private final BlobstoreService bs = 
BlobstoreServiceFactory.getBlobstoreService();

protected void doPost(final HttpServletRequest request, final 
HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException
{
final MapString, BlobKey blobs = bs.getUploadedBlobs(request);
final BlobKey blobKey = blobs.get(blob);

if (blobKey == null)
{
log.severe(BlobKey was null!);
response.sendRedirect(/error.html);
}
else
{
response.sendRedirect(/image?blob-key= + 
blobKey.getKeyString());
}
}

/**
 * Generates the custom single use blobstore URL's that are needed to 
upload to the blobstore programmatically.
 *
 * @param request
 * @param response
 *
 * @throws ServletException
 * @throws IOException
 */
protected void doGet(final HttpServletRequest request, final 
HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException
{
final String uploadURL = bs.createUploadUrl(/upload);
final PrintWriter pw = response.getWriter();
response.setContentType(text/plain);
pw.write(uploadURL);
}
}

Here is my command line python code that works with developer mode just 
fine, but causes the above servlet code to log BlobKey was null! on every 
request.


#!/usr/bin/env python

import mimetools
import mimetypes
import itertools
import urllib2

class MultiPartForm(object):
Accumulate the data to be used when posting a form.

def __init__(self):
self.form_fields = []
self.files = []
self.boundary = mimetools.choose_boundary()
return

def get_content_type(self):
return 'multipart/form-data; boundary=%s' % self.boundary

def add_field(self, name, value):
Add a simple field to the form data.
self.form_fields.append((name, value))
return

def add_file(self, fieldname, filename, fileHandle, mimetype=None):
Add a file to be uploaded.
body = fileHandle.read()
if mimetype is None:
mimetype = mimetypes.guess_type(filename)[0] or 
'application/octet-stream'
self.files.append((fieldname, filename, mimetype, body))
return

def __str__(self):
Return a string representing the form data, including attached 
files.
# Build a list of lists, each containing lines of the
# request.  Each part is separated by a boundary string.
# Once the list is built, return a string where each
# line is separated by '\r\n'.  
parts = []
part_boundary = '--' + self.boundary

# Add the form fields
parts.extend(
[ part_boundary,
  'Content-Disposition: form-data; name=%s' % name,
  '',
  value,
]
for name, value in self.form_fields
)

# Add the files to upload
parts.extend(
[ part_boundary,
  'Content-Disposition: file; name=%s; filename=%s' % \
 (field_name, filename),
  'Content-Type: %s' % content_type,
  '',
  body,
]
for field_name, filename, content_type, body in self.files
)

# Flatten the list and add closing boundary marker,
# then return CR+LF separated data
flattened = list(itertools.chain(*parts))
flattened.append('--' + self.boundary + '--')
flattened.append('')
return '\r\n'.join(flattened)

f = urllib2.urlopen('http://localhost:8080/upload')
bloburl = 'http://localhost:8080%s' % f.read(1024)
print bloburl
print

image = file('120.jpg', 'r')
form = MultiPartForm()
form.add_file('blob', 'blob', image, 'image/jpeg')

request = urllib2.Request(bloburl)
body = str(form)
request.add_header('Content-type', form.get_content_type())
request.add_header('Content-length', len(body))
request.add_data(body)

print request.get_data()
print

print urllib2.urlopen(request).read()

What am I missing for this to work?

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Almost have a command line program to upload binaries to the Blobstore without a browser, can you help me get it working completely?

2011-05-10 Thread Jarrod Roberson

I have the following Python command line program that works just fine with 
my local GAE developer mode server, but when I deploy it to the actual GAE 
servers, it doesn't work, it doesn't find any blobs in the request?

Here is my upload servlet:

public class UploadServlet extends HttpServlet
{
private static final Logger log = 
Logger.getLogger(UploadServlet.class.getName());

private final BlobstoreService bs = 
BlobstoreServiceFactory.getBlobstoreService();

protected void doPost(final HttpServletRequest request, final 
HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException
{
final MapString, BlobKey blobs = bs.getUploadedBlobs(request);
final BlobKey blobKey = blobs.get(blob);

if (blobKey == null)
{
log.severe(BlobKey was null!);
response.sendRedirect(/error.html);
}
else
{
response.sendRedirect(/image?blob-key= + 
blobKey.getKeyString());
}
}

/**
 * Generates the custom single use blobstore URL's that are needed to 
upload to the blobstore programmatically.
 *
 * @param request
 * @param response
 *
 * @throws ServletException
 * @throws IOException
 */
protected void doGet(final HttpServletRequest request, final 
HttpServletResponse response) throws ServletException, IOException
{
final String uploadURL = bs.createUploadUrl(/upload);
final PrintWriter pw = response.getWriter();
response.setContentType(text/plain);
pw.write(uploadURL);
}
}

Here is my command line python code that works with developer mode just 
fine, but causes the above servlet code to log BlobKey was null! on every 
request.


#!/usr/bin/env python

import mimetools
import mimetypes
import itertools
import urllib2

class MultiPartForm(object):
Accumulate the data to be used when posting a form.

def __init__(self):
self.form_fields = []
self.files = []
self.boundary = mimetools.choose_boundary()
return

def get_content_type(self):
return 'multipart/form-data; boundary=%s' % self.boundary

def add_field(self, name, value):
Add a simple field to the form data.
self.form_fields.append((name, value))
return

def add_file(self, fieldname, filename, fileHandle, mimetype=None):
Add a file to be uploaded.
body = fileHandle.read()
if mimetype is None:
mimetype = mimetypes.guess_type(filename)[0] or 
'application/octet-stream'
self.files.append((fieldname, filename, mimetype, body))
return

def __str__(self):
Return a string representing the form data, including attached 
files.
# Build a list of lists, each containing lines of the
# request.  Each part is separated by a boundary string.
# Once the list is built, return a string where each
# line is separated by '\r\n'.  
parts = []
part_boundary = '--' + self.boundary

# Add the form fields
parts.extend(
[ part_boundary,
  'Content-Disposition: form-data; name=%s' % name,
  '',
  value,
]
for name, value in self.form_fields
)

# Add the files to upload
parts.extend(
[ part_boundary,
  'Content-Disposition: file; name=%s; filename=%s' % \
 (field_name, filename),
  'Content-Type: %s' % content_type,
  '',
  body,
]
for field_name, filename, content_type, body in self.files
)

# Flatten the list and add closing boundary marker,
# then return CR+LF separated data
flattened = list(itertools.chain(*parts))
flattened.append('--' + self.boundary + '--')
flattened.append('')
return '\r\n'.join(flattened)

# my-app is replaced with my actual application name
f = 
urllib2.urlopen('http://my-app.appspot.com/uploadhttp://localhost:8080/upload
')
bloburl = f.read(1024)
print bloburl
print

image = file('120.jpg', 'r')
form = MultiPartForm()
form.add_file('blob', 'blob', image, 'image/jpeg')

request = urllib2.Request(bloburl)
body = str(form)
request.add_header('Content-type', form.get_content_type())
request.add_header('Content-length', len(body))
request.add_data(body)

print request.get_data()
print

print urllib2.urlopen(request).read()

What am I missing for this to work?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Data / index quota usage

Here's my list I go by:
1. Only index properties you really need indexed.
2. Make sure your composite indexes are really need. With zig-zag merge join
some composite indexes suggested by development server may not be needed.
3. Keep property names short. I use 3-4 character names but most are 3
characters.
4. Keep your entity kind names short. I use 2 character entity kind names.
5. If using namespaces, keep them short too.
6. Keep you appid short but this is hard to do since no ssl support so you
may want your appspot.com domain to be more descriptive. I've gone with a
longer name myself.
7. Keep down on the number of indexes need use your keys wisely, just don't
use an auto increment number or something like that which doesn't provide
you with anything, for example, if I have a User entity kind then their key
is their user id not an auto increment number where I also need an
additional property for User Id that I need to index. Then, if User, for
example, can rent items and I am going to store that in a Rental entity,
then I make the key be their User Id + the Date/Time of the rental so now I
can use the key to query for all of a User's rentals and they are ordered by
the Date/Time of the rental. Also, since single-property indexes also
contain the key in the index, I can query using the Key and the single
property index value so it's like I'm querying on multiple properties. In
addition, you can easily query on the key range, so let's say I want to
query on the rentals of a user for last month and that single-value
property. Again, no need for a composite index for this type of query.

Right now, in my development app, I have the following data breakdown
according to the Datastore Statistics page:
Total # of entities: 6,475
Size of all entities: 272 MB
Metadata: 1 MB
And according to Quota Details total datastore usage is .27

I've so far only had to have one composite index created but there is a
caveat to that. Since I am in dev. mode I don't have lots and lots of
entities and it is possible that the zig-zag merge join may fail me down the
road and I may need to add some additional composite indexes either because
I start getting Index Needed exceptions or because I find that with a
composite index I can get a speed boost over the zig-zag join.

Now, my entities are larger than probably the average user's entities and so
if you have lots and lots of small entities then you index usage may go up.

I hope this helps. I'm sure others have lots of suggestions too.
Stephen



On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Richard Druce contactd...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hope everyone is having a good day. We've just outgrown the free data
 storage which Appengine kindly provides which is good but it looks like most
 of our data is indexes as only 200M of the 1.1 G used is actual data /
 metadata. Is this a normal ratio and are there any best practices we can use
 to limit the growth of the index / data ratio?

 Cheers,

 Richard

 --
 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.


-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Data / index quota usage

BTW, when I say no ssl support I'm referring to for the custom domain. What
I mean is if there were support for custom domain ssl then appid could be
really short and the user wouldn't even know what it is. Sorry for any
confusion.

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Stephen Johnson onepagewo...@gmail.comwrote:

 Here's my list I go by:
 1. Only index properties you really need indexed.
 2. Make sure your composite indexes are really need. With zig-zag merge
 join some composite indexes suggested by development server may not be
 needed.
 3. Keep property names short. I use 3-4 character names but most are 3
 characters.
 4. Keep your entity kind names short. I use 2 character entity kind names.
 5. If using namespaces, keep them short too.
 6. Keep you appid short but this is hard to do since no ssl support so you
 may want your appspot.com domain to be more descriptive. I've gone with a
 longer name myself.
 7. Keep down on the number of indexes need use your keys wisely, just don't
 use an auto increment number or something like that which doesn't provide
 you with anything, for example, if I have a User entity kind then their key
 is their user id not an auto increment number where I also need an
 additional property for User Id that I need to index. Then, if User, for
 example, can rent items and I am going to store that in a Rental entity,
 then I make the key be their User Id + the Date/Time of the rental so now I
 can use the key to query for all of a User's rentals and they are ordered by
 the Date/Time of the rental. Also, since single-property indexes also
 contain the key in the index, I can query using the Key and the single
 property index value so it's like I'm querying on multiple properties. In
 addition, you can easily query on the key range, so let's say I want to
 query on the rentals of a user for last month and that single-value
 property. Again, no need for a composite index for this type of query.

 Right now, in my development app, I have the following data breakdown
 according to the Datastore Statistics page:
 Total # of entities: 6,475
 Size of all entities: 272 MB
 Metadata: 1 MB
 And according to Quota Details total datastore usage is .27

 I've so far only had to have one composite index created but there is a
 caveat to that. Since I am in dev. mode I don't have lots and lots of
 entities and it is possible that the zig-zag merge join may fail me down the
 road and I may need to add some additional composite indexes either because
 I start getting Index Needed exceptions or because I find that with a
 composite index I can get a speed boost over the zig-zag join.

 Now, my entities are larger than probably the average user's entities and
 so if you have lots and lots of small entities then you index usage may go
 up.

 I hope this helps. I'm sure others have lots of suggestions too.
 Stephen




 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Richard Druce contactd...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hope everyone is having a good day. We've just outgrown the free data
 storage which Appengine kindly provides which is good but it looks like most
 of our data is indexes as only 200M of the 1.1 G used is actual data /
 metadata. Is this a normal ratio and are there any best practices we can use
 to limit the growth of the index / data ratio?

 Cheers,

 Richard

 --
 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.




-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Data / index quota usage

2011-05-10 Thread Richard Druce

Thanks Stephen - great answer.
--
m: +44 753 489 2926


On 10 May 2011 17:34, Stephen Johnson onepagewo...@gmail.com wrote:

 BTW, when I say no ssl support I'm referring to for the custom domain. What
 I mean is if there were support for custom domain ssl then appid could be
 really short and the user wouldn't even know what it is. Sorry for any
 confusion.


 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Stephen Johnson 
 onepagewo...@gmail.comwrote:

 Here's my list I go by:
 1. Only index properties you really need indexed.
 2. Make sure your composite indexes are really need. With zig-zag merge
 join some composite indexes suggested by development server may not be
 needed.
 3. Keep property names short. I use 3-4 character names but most are 3
 characters.
 4. Keep your entity kind names short. I use 2 character entity kind names.
 5. If using namespaces, keep them short too.
 6. Keep you appid short but this is hard to do since no ssl support so you
 may want your appspot.com domain to be more descriptive. I've gone with a
 longer name myself.
 7. Keep down on the number of indexes need use your keys wisely, just
 don't use an auto increment number or something like that which doesn't
 provide you with anything, for example, if I have a User entity kind then
 their key is their user id not an auto increment number where I also need an
 additional property for User Id that I need to index. Then, if User, for
 example, can rent items and I am going to store that in a Rental entity,
 then I make the key be their User Id + the Date/Time of the rental so now I
 can use the key to query for all of a User's rentals and they are ordered by
 the Date/Time of the rental. Also, since single-property indexes also
 contain the key in the index, I can query using the Key and the single
 property index value so it's like I'm querying on multiple properties. In
 addition, you can easily query on the key range, so let's say I want to
 query on the rentals of a user for last month and that single-value
 property. Again, no need for a composite index for this type of query.

 Right now, in my development app, I have the following data breakdown
 according to the Datastore Statistics page:
 Total # of entities: 6,475
 Size of all entities: 272 MB
 Metadata: 1 MB
 And according to Quota Details total datastore usage is .27

 I've so far only had to have one composite index created but there is a
 caveat to that. Since I am in dev. mode I don't have lots and lots of
 entities and it is possible that the zig-zag merge join may fail me down the
 road and I may need to add some additional composite indexes either because
 I start getting Index Needed exceptions or because I find that with a
 composite index I can get a speed boost over the zig-zag join.

 Now, my entities are larger than probably the average user's entities and
 so if you have lots and lots of small entities then you index usage may go
 up.

 I hope this helps. I'm sure others have lots of suggestions too.
  Stephen




 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Richard Druce contactd...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hope everyone is having a good day. We've just outgrown the free data
 storage which Appengine kindly provides which is good but it looks like most
 of our data is indexes as only 200M of the 1.1 G used is actual data /
 metadata. Is this a normal ratio and are there any best practices we can use
 to limit the growth of the index / data ratio?

 Cheers,

 Richard

 --
 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.



  --
 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.


-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: javax.el.PropertyNotFoundException: Could not find property typeDO in class xxx.xxx.ImageDO

Your welcome!

On Mon, May 9, 2011 at 10:26 PM, Markus ad...@thandaro.com wrote:

 Omg... a realy realy stupid error. Thanks for help...

 --
 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.



-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Data / index quota usage

Your welcome and one other thing that I forgot to mention is that:
8. I don't store KEY values as property values but instead use my own
references since KEYs have the overhead of having the appid/namespace etc.
in them and I prefer just storing what I need.


On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:35 AM, Richard Druce contactd...@gmail.comwrote:

 Thanks Stephen - great answer.
 --
 m: +44 753 489 2926



 On 10 May 2011 17:34, Stephen Johnson onepagewo...@gmail.com wrote:

 BTW, when I say no ssl support I'm referring to for the custom domain.
 What I mean is if there were support for custom domain ssl then appid could
 be really short and the user wouldn't even know what it is. Sorry for any
 confusion.


 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 9:33 AM, Stephen Johnson 
 onepagewo...@gmail.comwrote:

 Here's my list I go by:
 1. Only index properties you really need indexed.
 2. Make sure your composite indexes are really need. With zig-zag merge
 join some composite indexes suggested by development server may not be
 needed.
 3. Keep property names short. I use 3-4 character names but most are 3
 characters.
 4. Keep your entity kind names short. I use 2 character entity kind
 names.
 5. If using namespaces, keep them short too.
 6. Keep you appid short but this is hard to do since no ssl support so
 you may want your appspot.com domain to be more descriptive. I've gone
 with a longer name myself.
 7. Keep down on the number of indexes need use your keys wisely, just
 don't use an auto increment number or something like that which doesn't
 provide you with anything, for example, if I have a User entity kind then
 their key is their user id not an auto increment number where I also need an
 additional property for User Id that I need to index. Then, if User, for
 example, can rent items and I am going to store that in a Rental entity,
 then I make the key be their User Id + the Date/Time of the rental so now I
 can use the key to query for all of a User's rentals and they are ordered by
 the Date/Time of the rental. Also, since single-property indexes also
 contain the key in the index, I can query using the Key and the single
 property index value so it's like I'm querying on multiple properties. In
 addition, you can easily query on the key range, so let's say I want to
 query on the rentals of a user for last month and that single-value
 property. Again, no need for a composite index for this type of query.

 Right now, in my development app, I have the following data breakdown
 according to the Datastore Statistics page:
 Total # of entities: 6,475
 Size of all entities: 272 MB
 Metadata: 1 MB
 And according to Quota Details total datastore usage is .27

 I've so far only had to have one composite index created but there is a
 caveat to that. Since I am in dev. mode I don't have lots and lots of
 entities and it is possible that the zig-zag merge join may fail me down the
 road and I may need to add some additional composite indexes either because
 I start getting Index Needed exceptions or because I find that with a
 composite index I can get a speed boost over the zig-zag join.

 Now, my entities are larger than probably the average user's entities and
 so if you have lots and lots of small entities then you index usage may go
 up.

 I hope this helps. I'm sure others have lots of suggestions too.
  Stephen




 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 2:31 AM, Richard Druce contactd...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hope everyone is having a good day. We've just outgrown the free data
 storage which Appengine kindly provides which is good but it looks like 
 most
 of our data is indexes as only 200M of the 1.1 G used is actual data /
 metadata. Is this a normal ratio and are there any best practices we can 
 use
 to limit the growth of the index / data ratio?

 Cheers,

 Richard

 --
 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.



  --
 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.


  --
 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.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

[google-appengine] App Engine 1.5.0 Release is Live

2011-05-10 Thread Marzia Niccolai

(From
http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/app-engine-150-release.html)

App Engine 1.5.0
Releasehttp://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/app-engine-150-release.html

The App Engine team has been working furiously in preparation for Google I/O
time and today, we are excited to announce the release of App Engine 1.5.0,
complete with a bunch of new features. This release brings a whole new
dimension to App Engine Applications with the introduction of Backends, some
big improvements to Task Queues, a completely new, experimental runtime for
the Go language, High Replication Datastore as the new default configuration
(and a lower price!), and even more tweaks and bug fixes.
Serving Changes

- *Backends*: Until now all App Engine applications have been running on
short-lived dynamic instances that we spin up and down in response to
application requests. This is great for building scalable web applications,
but has a number of limitations if you are looking to build larger,
long-lived, and/or memory intensive infrastructure. With 1.5.0, we are
introducing Backends which will allow developers to do precisely this!
Backends are developer-controlled, long-running, addressable sets of
instances which are as large as the developer specifies. There are no
request deadlines, they can be started and stopped (or dynamically start
when called), they can use between 128M and 1G of memory and proportional
CPU. If you’d like to find out more, have a read through our Backend docs
for Java http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/java/backends/
andPythonhttp://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/backends/
.
- *Pull Queues*: Most of our users are heavily using Task Queues in their
applications today, but there is lots of room for more flexibility. With
1.5.0 we are introducing Pull
Queueshttp://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/taskqueue/overview-pull.html
to
allow developers to “pull” tasks from a queue as applications are ready to
process them, rather than relying on Task Queues to push tasks at a
pre-configured rate. This means you can write a Backend to do some
background processing and pull 1, 10, or 100s of tasks off the Pull Queue
when the Backend is ready for more. In addition, we’ve introduced a REST API
which will allow external services to do the same thing. For example, if you
have an external server running to do image conversion or OCR, you can now
use the REST API to pull tasks off, run them, and return the results. In
conjunction with these 2 improvements, we’ve also increased the payload
limits and processing rate. We are excited both about expanding the use of
Task Queues as well as improving the ease of integration between App Engine
and the rest of the cloud.

Datastore

- *High Replication Datastore as default*: After months of usage and

feedbackhttp://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/03/high-replication-datastore-solid-choice.html
on
the High Replication datastore (as well as a record of 99.999% uptime so
far) we are now confident that it is the right path forward for the majority
of our users. So, today we are doing two things: setting HRD as the default
for all new apps created, lowering the price of HRD storage from $0.45 down
to $0.24, and encouraging everybody to begin plans to migrate. We really
appreciate all the time that early users of HRD put into trying it out and
finding issues and have fixed a number of those issues with this release.

Changed APIs

- *URLFetch API*: In response to popular demand, the HTTP request and
response sizes have been increased to 32 MB.
- *Mail API*: We have added a few restrictions to the Mail API to improve
the reliability and reputation of the service for all applications. First,
emails must be sent from email accounts managed by Google (either Gmail, or
a domain signed up for Google Apps). Second, we’ve reduced the number of
free recipients per day from 2000 to 100 for newly created applications.
Both of these will help ensure mail from your application arrives at the
destination reliably.

Administration

- *Code downloads*: As of 1.5.0, we have expanded the ability to download
an Application’s source code to include both the user who uploaded the code
to download it as well as the Owner(s) of the project as listed in the Admin
Console. Owners were introduced in 1.4.2 as an admin
rolehttp://code.google.com/appengine/docs/adminconsole/roles.html
.

- *New runtime*: With 1.5.0 we are launching an experimental runtime for
the Go Programming Language http://golang.org/. Go is an open source,
statically typed, compiled language with a dynamic and lightweight feel.
It’s also an interesting new option for App Engine because Go apps will be
compiled to native code, making Go a good choice for more CPU-intensive
tasks. As of today, the App Engine SDK for Go is available for

Re: [google-appengine] App Engine 1.5.0 Release is Live

2011-05-10 Thread Joshua Smith

 High Replication Datastore as default: ... encouraging everybody to begin 
 plans to migrate….

 Mail API: ...we’ve reduced the number of free recipients per day from 2000 to 
 100 for newly created applications...

So if we migrate to HR Datastore, does that mean we have a newly created 
application, and will get dinged by this new, rather low, free quota for email?

-Joshua

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: App Engine 1.5.0 Release is Live

2011-05-10 Thread pdknsk

I've tried backends, works great, but I've been wondering why tasks
running on backends are not logged automatically.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] 1.5 is out / SDK for Go

2011-05-10 Thread Ross M Karchner

I'm sure official announcements are coming:

http://code.google.com/appengine/downloads.html
http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/go/overview.html

-- 
Ross M Karchner

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

Did App Engine suddenly start costing a minimum of $45 per month?

http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app-engine.html

Summary: pay-as-you-go is 8 cents per hour an instance is running, or 5 
cents per hour if you pre-reserve. This translates to $58 per month for 
pay-as-you-go or $36 per month for pre-reserved. Add the $9/app/month fee 
for any serious apps with billing enabled (required for using blobstore, 
etc), and it translates to $45 (if pre-reserved) or $67 (pay-as-you-go). And 
this is for an app with only one instance always running.

Compared to what we've been used to, this seems like a major increase in 
price. Maybe someone can shed some light on this - I hope it's not as bad as 
it looks to me.

(P.S. Pricing for High Replication Datastore is a welcome change - thanks 
Google. You've also made it easier to pick HRD, as there'd no pricing 
advantage for M/S anymore).

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] [Correction - still get 24 IH free per day] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

Correction:

I missed something. We still get 24 Instance Hours per day for the free 
quota. So it's really just a minimum of $9 per month. Phew.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] The Url uses a high amount of CPU and may soon exceed its quota

2011-05-10 Thread Chinmay

Hi all I have hosted my website www.javatutoronline.com  in google 
appengine.  I had made all the pages JSP. The Home .jsp that is the first 
page shows up The Url uses a high amount of CPU and may soon exceed its 
quota  in the appengine dashboard. There may be on average 15 to 20 visits 
to this page daily. That is too less still then why am I getting this 
message.

Thanks in Advance

Chinmay

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

Instance hours seem very expensive still, Always on would require you
to commit to 3 * 24 * 30 instance hours a month...

On May 10, 12:42 pm, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Correction:

 I missed something. We still get 24 Instance Hours per day for the free
 quota. So it's really just a minimum of $9 per month. Phew.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: appcfg.py upload_data to localhost partially fails on OSX

2011-05-10 Thread Erik Kallevig

Just another note.  I upgraded to the 1.5.0 version of the SDK and the
problem persists.  Not sure if I mentioned this before, but I am
uploading data with appcfg.py to a local Java app, not a Python app.
Any help figuring this out would be appreciated.  Just wondering if
anyone has successfully uploaded to a local Java app on a Mac.

On Apr 20, 10:58 am, Erik Kallevig ekalle...@gmail.com wrote:
 I had been using python 2.6.  I just upgraded to 2.7.1 and I get the same
 problem.  I just downgraded to 2.5 per your suggestion, same problem.  I've
 tried limiting threads, increasing batch size, nothing seems to work.  The
 other weird issue is that I can only run this command once and it has to be
 right after I have deleted the local datastore files and restarted the app.
  Otherwise, if I try to run the command again I get authentication failed
 errors.  Here's a more verbose log from my latest attempt.

 Can anyone get an 'appcfg.py upload_data' command to work with localhost on
 a Mac?

 erik:temp erik.kallevig$ appcfg.py upload_data --application=appname
 --kind=Page --url=http://localhost:/remote_api--filename=./dumpfile
 --noisy --no_cookies --batch_size=1 --num_threads=1
 Uploading data records.
 [INFO    ] Logging to bulkloader-log-20110420.105013
 [INFO    ] Throttling transfers:
 [INFO    ] Bandwidth: 25 bytes/second
 [INFO    ] HTTP connections: 8/second
 [INFO    ] Entities inserted/fetched/modified: 20/second
 [INFO    ] Batch Size: 1
 [INFO    ] Opening database: bulkloader-progress-20110420.105013.sql3
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-1] RestoreThread: started
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-1] RestoreThread: exiting
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-2] RestoreThread: started
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-3] WorkerThread: started
 [DEBUG   ] Configuring remote_api. url_path = /remote_api, servername =
 localhost:
 Please enter login credentials for localhost
 Email: admin
 Password for admin:
 [DEBUG   ] Bulkloader using app_id: appname
 [INFO    ] Connecting to localhost:/remote_api
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-4] ProgressTrackerThread: started
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-5] DataSourceThread: started
 [INFO    ] Starting import; maximum 1 entities per post
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-2] RestoreThread: exiting
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-5] DataSourceThread: exiting
 [DEBUG   ] [Thread-3] Got work item [1-1050]
 [DEBUG   ] Waiting for worker threads to finish...
 [ERROR   ] [Thread-3] WorkerThread:
 Traceback (most recent call last):
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/tool 
 s/adaptive_thread_pool.py,
 line 176, in WorkOnItems
     status, instruction = item.PerformWork(self.__thread_pool)
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/tool 
 s/bulkloader.py,
 line 763, in PerformWork
     transfer_time = self._TransferItem(thread_pool)
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/tool 
 s/bulkloader.py,
 line 934, in _TransferItem
     self.request_manager.PostEntities(self.content)
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/tool 
 s/bulkloader.py,
 line 1393, in PostEntities
     datastore.Put(entities)
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/api/ 
 datastore.py,
 line 455, in Put
     return _GetConnection().async_put(config, entities,
 extra_hook).get_result()
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/data 
 store/datastore_rpc.py,
 line 629, in get_result
     self.check_success()
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/data 
 store/datastore_rpc.py,
 line 599, in check_success
     rpc.check_success()
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/api/ 
 apiproxy_stub_map.py,
 line 558, in check_success
     self.__rpc.CheckSuccess()
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/api/ 
 apiproxy_rpc.py,
 line 156, in _WaitImpl
     self.request, self.response)
   File
 /Applications/GoogleAppEngineLauncher.app/Contents/Resources/GoogleAppEngi 
 ne-default.bundle/Contents/Resources/google_appengine/google/appengine/ext/ 
 remote_api/remote_api_stub.py,
 line 248, in MakeSyncCall
     handler(request, response)
   File

[google-appengine] Aw: Re: App Engine 1.5.0 Release is Live

2011-05-10 Thread Martin Weissenboeck

I think there is still an error: it is not possible to have an umlaut in the 
path.

I have tried to use the guestbook example. My name is Martin Weissenböck and 
Google App Engine Launcher tries to copy the guestbook directory to 
C:\Dokumente und Einstellungen\Martin Weissenböck\guestbook
Result: a lot of error messages

Another problem:
The file google_appengine_projects.ini contains a section [0] without a name 
- the result is another list of error messages.

Regards, Martin

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] New Pricing

Googlers,

I'm sure you're all off having a blast at IO!  If you get a second to
read this post I'd like to be the first to urge you to reconsider your
new pricing model.

I don't care about the $9/app price, that's more then fair.

But your $/instance hour is insane.  I don't see how you can see
people complained about $/cpu hour, and you replace it with this.  My
apps that cost pennies a day with $cpu/hour are now close to $100/
month billed by instance hour...Maybe I am missing something?  It
looks like the always on price went from ~$8/month to $108/month.

Hopefully these prices are not final... or maybe I am not
understanding them.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Remote Data Fetching

2011-05-10 Thread kyle valade



I'm not sure if Google App Engine is the right framework for this. I am 
working on a reservation management system and was originally thinking of 
the design in terms of PHP and MySQL and just inserting data into a database 
and retrieving it whenever necessary. Now I'm trying to rethink that program 
in terms of Python and Django and the GAE.

The problem lies in a page that lies on an outside website that generates 
most of the data that will be used in the database. I assume that there is 
no way for a remote page to access the datastore for an application, but is 
there a way for that remote page to post information via HTTP (or some other 
method) to my google app?

I realize that the URL Fetch documentation is probably telling me exactly 
what I'm looking for, but I'm fairly new to programming, so a lot of it is 
over my head. In particular, I'm not sure which URL I would post to in order 
to reach my app.

Thanks for your help.

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] New Pricing

2011-05-10 Thread Gregory D'alesandre

Hi JH,

I responded in this thread about this:
https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/54261b447e165812

Thanks!

Greg

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:30 AM, JH ja...@tickettrackit.com wrote:

 Googlers,

 I'm sure you're all off having a blast at IO!  If you get a second to
 read this post I'd like to be the first to urge you to reconsider your
 new pricing model.

 I don't care about the $9/app price, that's more then fair.

 But your $/instance hour is insane.  I don't see how you can see
 people complained about $/cpu hour, and you replace it with this.  My
 apps that cost pennies a day with $cpu/hour are now close to $100/
 month billed by instance hour...Maybe I am missing something?  It
 looks like the always on price went from ~$8/month to $108/month.

 Hopefully these prices are not final... or maybe I am not
 understanding them.

 --
 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.



-- 
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.

RE: [google-appengine] Remote Data Fetching

http://yourdomain.com/putindb?yourentity1=avalue
http://yourdomain.com/putindb?yourentity1=avalueyourentity2=bvalueyourent
ity3=cvalue yourentity2=bvalueyourentity3=cvalue

 

Use oauth to prevent unauthorized writes

 

http://yourdomain.com/getfromdb?yourentity1=thingtolookup

 

to do queries.

 

You'll have to write code to do this.

 

 

From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of kyle valade
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 11:57 AM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: [google-appengine] Remote Data Fetching

 

I'm not sure if Google App Engine is the right framework for this. I am
working on a reservation management system and was originally thinking of
the design in terms of PHP and MySQL and just inserting data into a database
and retrieving it whenever necessary. Now I'm trying to rethink that program
in terms of Python and Django and the GAE.

The problem lies in a page that lies on an outside website that generates
most of the data that will be used in the database. I assume that there is
no way for a remote page to access the datastore for an application, but is
there a way for that remote page to post information via HTTP (or some other
method) to my google app?

I realize that the URL Fetch documentation is probably telling me exactly
what I'm looking for, but I'm fairly new to programming, so a lot of it is
over my head. In particular, I'm not sure which URL I would post to in order
to reach my app.

Thanks for your help.

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Google should want to provide messaging in App Engine

2011-05-10 Thread Ray M

As an analyst with 20 years of object-oriented experience, 10 in web and 
Java technologies, who has worked exclusively with Fortune 200 companies for 
the last 13 years, I must implore Google to reconsider providing messaging 
to their App Engine customers.  I think Google is the greatest thing to 
happen to businesses since the 7-layer OSI networking model, but in recent 
months I've discouraged clients from moving to App Engine because most of 
their enterprise business logic is triggered by JMS messaging, even from the 
web interface.  It allows seamless integration with automated and manual 
workflows, such as People A,B and C want to be notified when X happens and 
don't trigger Y until B approves and the like.

I implore the community of App Engine users, developers and customers to 
assist me in presenting an undeniable business case to Google.  As such, I 
have begun with points from my own experience and analysis:

   1. Because of its power and flexibility, messaging has become a critical 
   component of automated inter-business communication.  App Engine cannot 
   compete fully in the business hosting sector without a messaging mechanism; 
   and Google has the opportunity to create an implementation which makes all 
   others obsolete.
   2. Messaging implementations like JMS already inter-operate seamlessly 
   with other languages.  There is no reason Google must implement the server 
   portion in Java or any particular language, and once implemented, can easily 
   be made available to all App Engine hosting environments.
   3. Most message-triggered business-logic need no response or just an 
   ACKNOWLEDGE response, saving processing and bandwidth.
   4. Multiple-destination deliveries can use UDP, saving bandwidth.
   5. It will be a no-brainer for messaging to respect and contribute to 
   engine quotas.
   6. Message-processing listeners can be instantiated on demand, 
   shuffled-around, load-balanced, cached and discarded just like servlets and 
   can be included in the web app, or more efficiently deployed, operated and 
   managed in its own name-based mass virtual-hosting environment with far less 
   overhead than an entire servlet engine.
   7. The world expects HTTP and HTTPS to be on ports 80 and 443, 
   respectively, but not so for messaging!  The implementation can provide a 
   factory for client connections allowing Google to more effectively manage 
   ports on the servers which act as entry points and frees Google from being 
   able to use only DNS-based load balancing mechanisms on its entry-point 
   servers.
   8. Google, which is already quite adept at hosting, indexing and 
   providing analytics for the world's standardized representations of 
   information, will be in a stronger position to host, index and provide 
   analytics for the world's disparate mechanisms of communication as well, or 
   even to unify them.

and, lastly, you have an intelligent and eager volunteer ready to sign a 
confidentiality statement and help Google's App Engine offerings to make all 
others obsolete!

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

Hi Greg,

Thanks much for the response. I understand responses will be slow this week.

For once, it now seems that Java has an advantage, as Python (and GO) users 
do not have the option of using multi-threaded to reduce the number of 
instances. So although Python (and GO) will *potentially use less resources 
and a lower footprint, will they now get charged more due to a limitation in 
the app engine runtime?

I've been developing with Java, but am pretty excited about GO's inclusion. 
This seems to be a bottleneck.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Cannot log in. Not authorized to access this application

2011-05-10 Thread daodao

I can log in my admin account through that url, but cannot access my
dashboard.



On 5月10日, 上午7时29分, Gopal Patel patelgo...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://appengine.google.com/a/awfullychocolate-bj.com

 2011/5/10 Gordon  Teresa daoda...@gmail.com







  The same:(

  1. openhttp://appengine.google.com
  2. log in as gor...@awfullychocolate-bj.com (the domain admin account)
  3. unauthorized message again:-( (top-right corner display 
  gor...@awfullychocolate-bj.com, seems login successfully)

  2011/5/9 Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com

  Appengine.google.com Log in.  Don't go to the url you are. Select the
  domain. Administer it.

  -Original Message-
  From: daodao [mailto:daoda...@gmail.com]
  Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 10:08 PM
  To: Brandon Wirtz
  Subject: Re: Cannot log in. Not authorized to access this application

  Here're my steps:

  1. I logout all of my google accounts and restart browser 2. open page of
 http://appengine.google.com/a/awfullychocolate-bj.com
  3. I was redirected to a google login page. I login with admin account of
  my
  custom domain awfullychocoate-bj.com 4. The message prompted:
  Unauthorized,
  You are not authorized to access this application.

  At step 4, I can see my admin account of awfullychocolate-bj.comdisplalying
  at top-right corner, which means the login succeeded.
  I can access my mailbox through mail.awfullychocolate-bj.com.

  Just several weeks ago, I can reach my dashboard through above steps.

  Any helps?

  BTW, I can access my app through awfullysystem.awfullychocolate- bj.com.
  The
  app works fine. But I need access dashboard to make some changes to my
  data.

  On 5月9日, 下午2时52分, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
   Works better if you include the name of the app you need help with.

   Also make sure you are signed out of Google when you go to
   appengine.google.com .  Try using an Incognito window.

   From the error you are getting it doesn't sound like you are trying to
   log in to the dash board.  If you are locked out of the dashboard you
   should be able to recover your password.  If you locked yourself out
   of your deployed app, we can't help you, that's an
  Application/programming
  issue.

   -Brandon

   -Original Message-
   From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com

   [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of daodao
   Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 1:27 PM
   To: Google App Engine
   Subject: [google-appengine] Cannot log in. Not authorized to access
   this application

   I receive the message as follows when trying to log into my google
   apps appengine account.

   Unauthorized
   You are not authorized to access this application.

   I'm using custom domain. I have tried both appengine.google.com/a/
   mydomain and appengine.google.com.

   Any help?

   --
   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
  athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

   --
  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.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

Gregory,

I'm specifically curious about Always On.  Will this feature still
exist?  It currently runs $2.10/week, however 3 reserved instances
under new pricing would run $108/month.

On May 10, 2:01 pm, Gregory D'alesandre gr...@google.com wrote:
 Hi JH,

 I responded in this thread about 
 this:https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread...

 Thanks!

 Greg







 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:30 AM, JH ja...@tickettrackit.com wrote:
  Googlers,

  I'm sure you're all off having a blast at IO!  If you get a second to
  read this post I'd like to be the first to urge you to reconsider your
  new pricing model.

  I don't care about the $9/app price, that's more then fair.

  But your $/instance hour is insane.  I don't see how you can see
  people complained about $/cpu hour, and you replace it with this.  My
  apps that cost pennies a day with $cpu/hour are now close to $100/
  month billed by instance hour...Maybe I am missing something?  It
  looks like the always on price went from ~$8/month to $108/month.

  Hopefully these prices are not final... or maybe I am not
  understanding them.

  --
  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.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] What will the memory limit of an app engine instance be in the future? Is it going down?

What will the memory limit of an app engine instance be in the future?
Is it going down?   The backends are configurable from 128mb to
1024mb, but what is the limit for a regular instance?

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Error: Server Error

2011-05-10 Thread Jonathan

The following error message is showing up when trying to activate my my last 
version http://540.reimbu-poland.appspot.com/ :

*Error: Server Error*

*The server encountered an error and could not complete your request.*

*If the problem persists, please report your problem and mention this error 
message and the query that caused it.*


This version was successfully locally tested. It provides improvements of 
the default version http://530.reimbu-poland.appspot.com/ 
The message does not provide any meaningful information
There is no query activated because it is before the login.

-- 
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.

RE: [google-appengine] Google should want to provide messaging in App Engine

Huh?

 

In the same place I have error logging, I can have Fetch URL and send my
self an SMS, or an email, or a fax, probably if I found the service a
Carrier pigeon.  Did my traffic fall off because someone else died? I can
ask every 10 seconds how many instances am I running? and again fetch
something from anywhere to send the message I need to the outside world.  

If all of Google went up in a pile of smoke. Then I might need something to
check that I'm still running. and that would have to be external to GAE.

 

Your long winded message basically says, I've been doing this for 20 years
I'm an old fogey looking for a reason to be relevant, and the only fault I
can find is that if something happens I want messaging.  It's there enable
it/build it/grow a pair.

 

GAE is a platform you can do anything in the platform the platform has the
bits to do.  You can't build it to send you pictures of the blinky lights on
the front of the server because it doesn't have a web cam, but short of
that, anything digital, you just talk bits over the web to what you need to
make the functionality happen.  

 

I want GAE to focus on Speed, and Reliability (and price [today more than
ever :-)] )  not worry about is there JMS.  You can bolt that on with the
parts that are there.  You're being a troll, or an attention seeker, or a
combination there of.

 

I need more APIs like I need a third rectum.  And the APIs I do need are
related to the things people expect from python and java. Which Google now
calls Backend which they just announced TADA!!! They did the right thing.
Not what the Analyst said to do, because it would seem he doesn't have
experience with the platform.  You are a Prius driver complaining that the
Ferrari doesn't have a Continuous Variable Transmission, and that the Ford
F350 doesn't have remote trunk unlock on the key fob.

 

 

From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ray M
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:05 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: [google-appengine] Google should want to provide messaging in App
Engine

 

As an analyst with 20 years of object-oriented experience, 10 in web and
Java technologies, who has worked exclusively with Fortune 200 companies for
the last 13 years, I must implore Google to reconsider providing messaging
to their App Engine customers.  I think Google is the greatest thing to
happen to businesses since the 7-layer OSI networking model, but in recent
months I've discouraged clients from moving to App Engine because most of
their enterprise business logic is triggered by JMS messaging, even from the
web interface.  It allows seamless integration with automated and manual
workflows, such as People A,B and C want to be notified when X happens and
don't trigger Y until B approves and the like.

I implore the community of App Engine users, developers and customers to
assist me in presenting an undeniable business case to Google.  As such, I
have begun with points from my own experience and analysis:

1.  Because of its power and flexibility, messaging has become a
critical component of automated inter-business communication.  App Engine
cannot compete fully in the business hosting sector without a messaging
mechanism; and Google has the opportunity to create an implementation which
makes all others obsolete.
2.  Messaging implementations like JMS already inter-operate seamlessly
with other languages.  There is no reason Google must implement the server
portion in Java or any particular language, and once implemented, can easily
be made available to all App Engine hosting environments.
3.  Most message-triggered business-logic need no response or just an
ACKNOWLEDGE response, saving processing and bandwidth.
4.  Multiple-destination deliveries can use UDP, saving bandwidth.
5.  It will be a no-brainer for messaging to respect and contribute to
engine quotas.
6.  Message-processing listeners can be instantiated on demand,
shuffled-around, load-balanced, cached and discarded just like servlets and
can be included in the web app, or more efficiently deployed, operated and
managed in its own name-based mass virtual-hosting environment with far less
overhead than an entire servlet engine.
7.  The world expects HTTP and HTTPS to be on ports 80 and 443,
respectively, but not so for messaging!  The implementation can provide a
factory for client connections allowing Google to more effectively manage
ports on the servers which act as entry points and frees Google from being
able to use only DNS-based load balancing mechanisms on its entry-point
servers.
8.  Google, which is already quite adept at hosting, indexing and
providing analytics for the world's standardized representations of
information, will be in a stronger position to host, index and provide
analytics for the world's disparate mechanisms of communication as well, or
even to unify them.

and, lastly, you have an

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Calvin

Looks like this billing change is going make using my XMPP Logger much more 
expensive. XMPP went from 46,000,000 free messages per day to 1,000.

-- 
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.

Re: RE: [google-appengine] Google should want to provide messaging in App Engine

2011-05-10 Thread Calvin

I think Brandon is just i a bad mood because he didn't get a free Samsung 
tablet, like everyone who got to go to Google I/O.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] New pricing: Will having a reserved instance cost $36 per month?

I want to have at least 1 reserved instance so that my users will
experience less loading requests.  Since we get 24 instance hours free
per day, could that be used on having a reserved instance? Or does it
only apply to on-demand instances?

Having 1 reserved instance cost $36 per month is very discouraging
considering it used to cost $9 per month for 3 reserved instances.  I
hope we will be able to use our free quota towards a reserved
instance.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Andrei

Could somebody compare pricing to AWS if I am running Tomcat or Jetty?

On May 10, 12:29 pm, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Did App Engine suddenly start costing a minimum of $45 per month?

 http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app...

 Summary: pay-as-you-go is 8 cents per hour an instance is running, or 5
 cents per hour if you pre-reserve. This translates to $58 per month for
 pay-as-you-go or $36 per month for pre-reserved. Add the $9/app/month fee
 for any serious apps with billing enabled (required for using blobstore,
 etc), and it translates to $45 (if pre-reserved) or $67 (pay-as-you-go). And
 this is for an app with only one instance always running.

 Compared to what we've been used to, this seems like a major increase in
 price. Maybe someone can shed some light on this - I hope it's not as bad as
 it looks to me.

 (P.S. Pricing for High Replication Datastore is a welcome change - thanks
 Google. You've also made it easier to pick HRD, as there'd no pricing
 advantage for M/S anymore).

-- 
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.

RE: RE: [google-appengine] Google should want to provide messaging in App Engine

I'm grumpy cause 6 analysts have called today to get my take on their
doomsday predictions of Appengine.  

 

Do you think Google will fail because they can't run windows or linux
software on Appengine? 

Is it true that AppEngine can't save anything bigger than would fit on a
floppy disk?

If you build on GAE and decide to insource is it true you have to start
over?

So GAE runs Java does that mean Sun will sue them like they did over
Android?

GAE won't run wordpress, with that being the most installed web software on
the planet how will Google Gain Market share

GAE is only shooting for 99.95%  uptime if clients need 5 9s of reliability
how will they use GAE?

 

The other analyst at least had the decency to pony up the $300 an hour for a
30 minute phone call. This one just reached out over email on a list he has
never posted to before.

 

 

Yeah, I would have liked to be at IO, but we were launching our service the
same day we found out we were going to go broke offering it.. And BlogWorld
Expo is coming up. and I moved to this rainy place rather than being in the
bay. besides I'd rather come down and take the Guys to lunch rather than
have to share them with 5000 attendees.

 

The Samsung tab would be nice, I need a digital picture frame.

 

 

 

From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Calvin
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 12:43 PM
To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: RE: [google-appengine] Google should want to provide messaging
in App Engine

 

I think Brandon is just i a bad mood because he didn't get a free Samsung
tablet, like everyone who got to go to Google I/O. 

-- 
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.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Under new billing, how would a multiget/multiput be billed?

Doing a get of a 100 entities at once would be one API call right? So
it would cost the same as doing a get of 1 entity?

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Google should want to provide messaging in App Engine

2011-05-10 Thread Darien Caldwell

Well, Brandon happens to be right. You can add any kind of messaging
to GAE you want. Or anything else, for that matter. And GAE already
does support XMPP, which is a messaging system, and a very widely
adopted and robust, and open one at that.  Basically the OP doesn't
want to get with the times and doesn't want to do any work. Make a JMS
system for GAE. Someone with your credentials should be able to do
that, right?

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

2011-05-10 Thread stephenp

I believe for $9/month you get one always-on instance. Then, you need to go 
make your app thread-safe and turn on multiple requests for your app so 
each instance can handle more than one request at a time. Also, they're 
going to make their instance scheduler better at keeping your instances 
busy.

Stephen

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Gregory D'alesandre

For the time being that is indeed true.  We are working on ways to bring
concurrency to Python but don't have anything we can announce just yet.  Go
is currently single-threaded, but this too is something that could change
over time.

Greg

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hi Greg,

 Thanks much for the response. I understand responses will be slow this
 week.

 For once, it now seems that Java has an advantage, as Python (and GO) users
 do not have the option of using multi-threaded to reduce the number of
 instances. So although Python (and GO) will *potentially use less resources
 and a lower footprint, will they now get charged more due to a limitation in
 the app engine runtime?

 I've been developing with Java, but am pretty excited about GO's inclusion.
 This seems to be a bottleneck.

  --
 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.


-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

Right now I get 3 instances with always on, and I am using python so I
have no thread-safe setting.  With the new pricing 3 instances at
$0.05 * 24 hours * 30 days is $108/month...

On May 10, 3:54 pm, stephenp slpe...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe for $9/month you get one always-on instance. Then, you need to go
 make your app thread-safe and turn on multiple requests for your app so
 each instance can handle more than one request at a time. Also, they're
 going to make their instance scheduler better at keeping your instances
 busy.

 Stephen

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Under new billing, how would a multiget/multiput be billed?

Similarly, with the new pricing, gets and puts will now cost the same?
I liked the old model that encouraged efficiency.

On May 10, 1:50 pm, Spines kwste...@gmail.com wrote:
 Doing a get of a 100 entities at once would be one API call right? So
 it would cost the same as doing a get of 1 entity?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Parent, childs and ancestor is

2011-05-10 Thread Pau

Thank you for your help!

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

Where did you read that $9/month would get you one always-on instance?

On May 10, 1:54 pm, stephenp slpe...@gmail.com wrote:
 I believe for $9/month you get one always-on instance. Then, you need to go
 make your app thread-safe and turn on multiple requests for your app so
 each instance can handle more than one request at a time. Also, they're
 going to make their instance scheduler better at keeping your instances
 busy.

 Stephen

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

2011-05-10 Thread stephenp

http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

I have no idea how this applies to python.

Stephen

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

I read that too. Seems like that is saying there is no free amount of
reserved instances.

On-demand Frontend Instances- 24 Instance Hours - $0.08 / hour
Reserved Frontend Instances -blank___- $0.05 / hour

Looks like the $9/mo gets you an SLA and the ability to be infinitely
scalable.

On May 10, 2:56 pm, stephenp slpe...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

 I have no idea how this applies to python.

 Stephen

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Kenneth

So is Guido finally getting rid of the GIL  :-)

On May 10, 10:00 pm, Gregory D'alesandre gr...@google.com wrote:
 For the time being that is indeed true.  We are working on ways to bring
 concurrency to Python but don't have anything we can announce just yet.  Go
 is currently single-threaded, but this too is something that could change
 over time.

 Greg







 On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
  Hi Greg,

  Thanks much for the response. I understand responses will be slow this
  week.

  For once, it now seems that Java has an advantage, as Python (and GO) users
  do not have the option of using multi-threaded to reduce the number of
  instances. So although Python (and GO) will *potentially use less resources
  and a lower footprint, will they now get charged more due to a limitation in
  the app engine runtime?

  I've been developing with Java, but am pretty excited about GO's inclusion.
  This seems to be a bottleneck.

   --
  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.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] new pricing - existing apps

2011-05-10 Thread Andrei

Will existing apps on GAE be under new pricing or do they keep current
quotas?
Thanks

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: New Pricing

Yes, Always on is not mentioned in the new pricing at all

On May 10, 5:04 pm, Spines kwste...@gmail.com wrote:
 I read that too. Seems like that is saying there is no free amount of
 reserved instances.

 On-demand Frontend Instances    - 24 Instance Hours - $0.08 / hour
 Reserved Frontend Instances     -    blank___    - $0.05 / hour

 Looks like the $9/mo gets you an SLA and the ability to be infinitely
 scalable.

 On May 10, 2:56 pm, stephenp slpe...@gmail.com wrote:







 http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

  I have no idea how this applies to python.

  Stephen

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Sylvain

For very small app $9/month is a big jump.

Example : for one of my apps, I pay $1/month and with the new price
$10/month
= +900%

GAE was : pay for what you use, it is no more the case...


On May 10, 7:29 pm, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Did App Engine suddenly start costing a minimum of $45 per month?

 http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app...

 Summary: pay-as-you-go is 8 cents per hour an instance is running, or 5
 cents per hour if you pre-reserve. This translates to $58 per month for
 pay-as-you-go or $36 per month for pre-reserved. Add the $9/app/month fee
 for any serious apps with billing enabled (required for using blobstore,
 etc), and it translates to $45 (if pre-reserved) or $67 (pay-as-you-go). And
 this is for an app with only one instance always running.

 Compared to what we've been used to, this seems like a major increase in
 price. Maybe someone can shed some light on this - I hope it's not as bad as
 it looks to me.

 (P.S. Pricing for High Replication Datastore is a welcome change - thanks
 Google. You've also made it easier to pick HRD, as there'd no pricing
 advantage for M/S anymore).

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: BadRequestError: cursor position cannot specify start inclusivity with out a start key

2011-05-10 Thread dan

I've seen the same thing. What does this mean?

-- 
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.

RE: [google-appengine] new pricing - existing apps

They move to the new pricing :-)  if they don't I'm buying other people's
accounts from them... No one has to know that the next winner of American
Idol's Website runs on an Appengine named BobsKittenLoveMachine


-Original Message-
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Andrei
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:19 PM
To: Google App Engine
Subject: [google-appengine] new pricing - existing apps

Will existing apps on GAE be under new pricing or do they keep current
quotas?
Thanks

--
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.


-- 
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.

RE: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

I don't mind $9 to help reduce the number of spam farms using GAE to mine
api calls and send email...   $9 = cost of a dream host account I figure
even as a sandbox $9 is cheap.

-Original Message-
From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
[mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Sylvain
Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Google App Engine
Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more
expensive???

For very small app $9/month is a big jump.

Example : for one of my apps, I pay $1/month and with the new price
$10/month = +900%

GAE was : pay for what you use, it is no more the case...

On May 10, 7:29 pm, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
 Did App Engine suddenly start costing a minimum of $45 per month?

 http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app...

 Summary: pay-as-you-go is 8 cents per hour an instance is running, or 
 5 cents per hour if you pre-reserve. This translates to $58 per month 
 for pay-as-you-go or $36 per month for pre-reserved. Add the 
 $9/app/month fee for any serious apps with billing enabled (required 
 for using blobstore, etc), and it translates to $45 (if pre-reserved) 
 or $67 (pay-as-you-go). And this is for an app with only one instance
always running.

 Compared to what we've been used to, this seems like a major increase 
 in price. Maybe someone can shed some light on this - I hope it's not 
 as bad as it looks to me.

 (P.S. Pricing for High Replication Datastore is a welcome change - 
 thanks Google. You've also made it easier to pick HRD, as there'd no 
 pricing advantage for M/S anymore).

--
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.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

The $9 is nothing compared to the Instance Hour $$ you will pay

On May 10, 5:25 pm, Sylvain sylvain.viv...@gmail.com wrote:
 For very small app $9/month is a big jump.

 Example : for one of my apps, I pay $1/month and with the new price
 $10/month
 = +900%

 GAE was : pay for what you use, it is no more the case...

 On May 10, 7:29 pm, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:







  Did App Engine suddenly start costing a minimum of $45 per month?

 http://googleappengine.blogspot.com/2011/05/year-ahead-for-google-app...

  Summary: pay-as-you-go is 8 cents per hour an instance is running, or 5
  cents per hour if you pre-reserve. This translates to $58 per month for
  pay-as-you-go or $36 per month for pre-reserved. Add the $9/app/month fee
  for any serious apps with billing enabled (required for using blobstore,
  etc), and it translates to $45 (if pre-reserved) or $67 (pay-as-you-go). And
  this is for an app with only one instance always running.

  Compared to what we've been used to, this seems like a major increase in
  price. Maybe someone can shed some light on this - I hope it's not as bad as
  it looks to me.

  (P.S. Pricing for High Replication Datastore is a welcome change - thanks
  Google. You've also made it easier to pick HRD, as there'd no pricing
  advantage for M/S anymore).

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] 100 emails recipients newly created applications.

2011-05-10 Thread Cláudio Coelho

Does this mean that after a while, an app will be allowed to send more 
emails?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Stephen

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 11:37 PM, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:

 I don't mind $9 to help reduce the number of spam farms using GAE to mine
 api calls and send email...

This could be fixed by restoring the 2000 email quota for emails sent
to admins of the app, and bumping up the price of the first X emails
sent to non-admins, with a  bulk discount for further usage.

 $9 = cost of a dream host account...

Dreamhost gives you storage, bandwidth, memory etc for $9. On App
Engine $9 will buy you the opportunity to be further charged for
actual usage.  It's a regressive tax on startup projects, which
considering the effort made to offer a completely free tier, is self
defeating.

-- 
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.

Re: RE: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread dan

I agree, $9/month is reasonable for a real app.

The big open question is the less predictable costs, e.g., the new scheduler 
and API changes.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: 100 emails recipients newly created applications.

2011-05-10 Thread Andrei

No
The old quota for free app was 2000, from today - 100

On May 10, 5:52 pm, Cláudio Coelho ereb...@gmail.com wrote:
 Does this mean that after a while, an app will be allowed to send more
 emails?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

Even though $9/month is pretty insignificant to many of us because
1. It is a fixed cost
2. It is small

We still should not gloss over it. Like Stephen said, this is really just a 
tax for the privilege of using blob-store and other billing-enabled 
services.

Having said that, I reckon that this is Google's attempt to streamline their 
business package (which they are doing away with) by saying that anyone that 
needs higher level services will pay a per-app or per-account cost.  In that 
light, it becomes more palatable (as it simplifies the offering), and I for 
one am okay with that. 

I think the bigger concern is the per-instance cost. This is especially 
troubling for 
1. folks that depend on the always-on features in java. 
2. folks in Python or the new GO runtime that don't as yet have concurrent 
request support. More instances will be spun dynamically with a 
consequential cost to them which is expected to be significant).

Hopefully, the new scheduler will iron out a lot of these unknowns so we're 
back to being happy app-engine users. Right now, it seems we're the only 
ones in the whole Google Ecosystem that's unhappy with some of the recent 
announcements. 

Actually, scratch that - I'm very happy for 2 things:
- GO language runtime support (the geek in me is just thrilled)
- Moving away from Preview status (I was always concerned about the life of 
GAE beyond the promised 3 years support post EOL. This removes my fears).

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: The aftermath of Garage48 Lagos. GWT and GAE rules

2011-05-10 Thread Sasha

It is really unfortunate that 419 is the first topic to come up when a
Nigerian developer surfaces... especially if this is discouraging
developers who are trying to do something productive instead of
scamming.

I'm not sure that the 419 reputation is even the biggest barrier to
selling a service like this to the West. For example, an app for
balance/budget tracking is unlikely to compete with complimentary
services provided by most banks and financial institutions which not
only offer similar services, but which automatically update based on
card usage and therefore do not require any data entry. For free,
without ads. Add the confidence problem that Brandon mentioned, and I
have to agree that it would be very tough to do and require a lot of
thought.

Based on the description, and not knowing about how everything works
in Lagos, I think this could become a great concept for developing and
emerging economies in places like urban Africa and India. In many
places (especially outside the biggest cities, but even in them) it
can be much harder to get information on product availability and
prices than it is in the West. You don't get Yellow Pages booklets
distributed everywhere, for example, and Yelp's coverage is pretty
bad ;) Also, most transactions are likely to be in cash rather than on
credit cards or checking accounts, so there is not much reason to
focus on downloading or scraping financial data. Many local businesses
are not going to have an easy way to reach buyers. So in many ways the
idea of using crowd-sourcing is very interesting and I would be
concerned with how to build a user base willing to send information
(given somewhat limited internet access and saturation of smartphones
with data service) as well as how the service will actually make
money. I think this means a lot of non-technical footwork and building
business relationships, even if you get a great technical product
which is widely accessible.

Best of luck!

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Jay Young

On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 5:00:35 PM UTC-4, Greg D wrote:

 Go is currently single-threaded, but this too is something that could 
 change over time.

 Greg


I'm really confused by this.  Do you mean the language's concurrency 
primitives (go routines, channels, etc) will still result in 
multi-threading, but we won't be able to explicitly spin up new threads and 
processes, or can we not use those concurrency primitives at all?

I don't mean to jump on you prematurely, but saying you're running Go in a 
single-threaded environment just made my head explode.

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Stephen

On Wed, May 11, 2011 at 12:12 AM, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:

 Hopefully, the new scheduler will iron out a lot of these unknowns so we're
 back to being happy app-engine users.


In the future if Google's scheduler is not optimal, you will be
charged for it. What is the incentive to get it right? How will you
know it is right?

Here's another perverse incentive: under the current scheme memory
usage is used as an input to the scheduler as well as latency and
start-up time. Apps which use less memory can have more instances at
the same resource cost to Google. My incentive is to optimise memory
usage. Under the upcoming scheme you are charged per-instance, so
there is zero incentive to optimise memory usage.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Google should want to provide messaging in App Engine

2011-05-10 Thread nickmilon

+1 for best sentence by Brandon so far 

You are a Prius driver complaining that the
Ferrari doesn't have a Continuous Variable Transmission, and that the
Ford
F350 doesn't have remote trunk unlock on the key fob.


On May 10, 11:54 pm, Darien Caldwell darien.caldw...@gmail.com
wrote:
 Well, Brandon happens to be right. You can add any kind of messaging
 to GAE you want. Or anything else, for that matter. And GAE already
 does support XMPP, which is a messaging system, and a very widely
 adopted and robust, and open one at that.  Basically the OP doesn't
 want to get with the times and doesn't want to do any work. Make a JMS
 system for GAE. Someone with your credentials should be able to do
 that, right?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

Hi Stephen,

I am totally with you on it. I actually alluded to this earlier, when I 
said:

For once, it now seems that Java has an advantage, as Python (and GO) users 
do not have the option of using multi-threaded to reduce the number of 
instances. So although Python (and GO) will *potentially use less resources 
and a lower footprint, will they now get charged more due to a limitation in 
the app engine runtime?

In building my app, I spent a lot of time optimizing resource usage, et al. 
With this model, all that seems to be for naught. 

Somewhere in the docs today, there's a note to the effect that apps on the 
java runtime will be charged more for using using more resources. 

I don't understand how this will be ironed out, which is why I termed this 
all unknowns. From what Greg says, it sounds like there's still some stuff 
to be ironed out on Google's end, and we'd only really know how things shake 
out once we see how the new scheduler works. 

I'm holding my breath ...

P.S. Google has been pretty fair and upfront with app engine - I haven't had 
a reason to distrust them yet. I'm hoping that their promotion of AppEngine 
from Preview will still maintain this fairness. 


-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Under new billing, how would a multiget/multiput be billed?

2011-05-10 Thread nickmilon

+ 1
Old model was much more on the green side.
Now we have to optimise for the new model.

On May 11, 12:11 am, Spines kwste...@gmail.com wrote:
 Similarly, with the new pricing, gets and puts will now cost the same?
 I liked the old model that encouraged efficiency.

 On May 10, 1:50 pm, Spines kwste...@gmail.com wrote:







  Doing a get of a 100 entities at once would be one API call right? So
  it would cost the same as doing a get of 1 entity?

-- 
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.

Re: [google-appengine] Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

eeIt's actually stated in the blog:
http://blog.golang.org/2011/05/go-and-google-app-engine.html

Also, although goroutines and channels are present, when a Go app runs on 
App Engine only one thread is run in a given instance. That is, *all 
goroutines run in a single operating system thread, so there is no CPU 
parallelism* available for a given client request. We expect this 
restriction will be lifted at some point.

So you can still use go routines, channels, etc - but we're back to like the 
days of green threads in java where the runtime multiplexes them on a single 
thread (which is fine). However, we don't get concurrent web requests on the 
same instance (which is not fine). Consequently, right now, Java Runtime 
seems to have a pretty significant advantage over the others (even over GO 
which has concurrency as some of its major advantages). And with instance 
pricing, it seems like it directly affects cost.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Frequently is Relative Right? Help with FAQ

2011-05-10 Thread nickmilon

Brandon, nice work  great page and  texts there  - hope you manage
with new pricing model.

On May 10, 2:13 am, Brandon Wirtz drak...@digerat.com wrote:
 Good catch on the what is a CDN question.  

 I was trying to decide if I want the customer that thinks I'm cheap :-) .
 It's like Cars or Hookers, the kind of person looking for a cheap one is
 likely not a good client :-).

 I have been thinking about the if you are running on GAE would we make you
 faster/better.  We have the whole serve things really fast out of Memcache
 thing down, and that helps. but obviously I'm marking up the service so
 you'd think if you wrote your own app you could get the mem-cache working
 correctly and be really close to the same numbers.  I'll have to think about
 that one and get back to you.

 From: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
 [mailto:google-appengine@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Tim
 Sent: Monday, May 09, 2011 4:06 PM
 To: google-appengine@googlegroups.com
 Subject: [google-appengine] Re: Frequently is Relative Right? Help with FAQ

   Quote: How do I know I need a CDN? You made it here, you must think you
 need a CDN.

 What about those who follow tweet like Make your site load much faster with
 ... ?? You will get some who need it (or could do with it) explaining -
 at least the acronym...

  Quote: You seem expensive. Are you?

 This makes me think, before I look at anything else, that it's going to be
 pricey - I'd pair this up with a You seem cheap. Are you? FAQ (that lets
 you talk about how it's a quality service despite the low low price etc)

 Extra Q: But my site already runs on GAE - so why will you be any different
 to me serving the files myself ?

 (Dunno the answer, that's why I'm asking, and it seems relevant here...).

 --

 T

 --
 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 
 athttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Albert

I just checked the new proposed pricing here...
http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

I'm confused why all the items below Channel API in the API Pricing
models have check marks instead of a price per unit. What does that
mean?

And when they say, Frontend Instances, does that include instances
handling task queues and crons?

Thanks!


Albert

On May 11, 8:24 am, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
 eeIt's actually stated in the 
 blog:http://blog.golang.org/2011/05/go-and-google-app-engine.html

 Also, although goroutines and channels are present, when a Go app runs on
 App Engine only one thread is run in a given instance. That is, *all
 goroutines run in a single operating system thread, so there is no CPU
 parallelism* available for a given client request. We expect this
 restriction will be lifted at some point.

 So you can still use go routines, channels, etc - but we're back to like the
 days of green threads in java where the runtime multiplexes them on a single
 thread (which is fine). However, we don't get concurrent web requests on the
 same instance (which is not fine). Consequently, right now, Java Runtime
 seems to have a pretty significant advantage over the others (even over GO
 which has concurrency as some of its major advantages). And with instance
 pricing, it seems like it directly affects cost.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

I think FrontEnd instances refer to your instances (ie JVM, or Python, etc). 
Task Queues and cron are still run by default on your instances (so your 
instances handle all web traffic, and taskqueues and cron are implemented as 
internally-generated web traffic to your application). 

Regarding the cost per operation for the other API's (like task queue, etc), 
I'm not sure. Wishful thinking :- maybe it means that we wouldn't be 
charged for those APIs anymore, and will just be charged for data storage 
(blobstore and datastore), bandwidth usage and datastore operations 
(put/get/query). 

A Googler will be better able to answer that part.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

The more I think about it, I wonder:

Are instance hours billed for actual time used by an instance, or
simply an instance alive...
So if I have 3 instances fired up via Always on, am I constantly
charged 3 * .05 per hour, or am I only billed by the actual time
instances were serving requests?


On May 10, 7:54 pm, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:
 I think FrontEnd instances refer to your instances (ie JVM, or Python, etc).
 Task Queues and cron are still run by default on your instances (so your
 instances handle all web traffic, and taskqueues and cron are implemented as
 internally-generated web traffic to your application).

 Regarding the cost per operation for the other API's (like task queue, etc),
 I'm not sure. Wishful thinking :- maybe it means that we wouldn't be
 charged for those APIs anymore, and will just be charged for data storage
 (blobstore and datastore), bandwidth usage and datastore operations
 (put/get/query).

 A Googler will be better able to answer that part.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???

2011-05-10 Thread Kaan Soral

I've been working on my project for 6 months, I've sacrificed
everything for the project and I feel like I may have done a big
mistake depending on GAE. And I am sure I spent 5 months out of 6
months on GAE specific things.

Let's say I have an application that depends on ad income. And assume
every request is 1 second and Task Scheduler is perfect!
So I pay $0.05 to an instance every hour, which has 3600 seconds
inside it. So lets average that number to 3600 requests and lets say
there are 1800 page views. (Assuming things are done with Ajax).

So the cost for 1000 page views are: $0.05/1800*1000=0.027$.

Assuming everything works perfect, and not counting background tasks,
although mine are huge, I need to get at least 0.027$ ecpm.

For example for Turkish traffic sometimes ecpms can drop below 0.1$'s,
and I am sure there are countries out there with significantly lower
ecpms and our cost traffics were optimal.

To sum up, It seems if I use GAE, I will always have the risk that the
costs will be higher than the income ...

I have applications on Dedicated Servers, usually a server is nearly
idle, the load is 0.5 out of 8, sometimes 2-3, and I am sure I don't
utilize them to %20 maybe, but still my cost ratio is %10 ! If I could
utilize a server to a maxomum level that could be %2 !

And on the best case it seems this rate will be %25 on gae assuming
everything is perfect 

This pricing and advertising under the page:
http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html made
me think gae only wants client like Best Buy etc, big companies who
have much higher income rates from web products ...

Other than these cost problems, I am using Python and I am very
worried since Go came out, which seems to be run multi-threaded in
future, Java is also multi-threaded, and as Python users we will only
have 1 instance / 1 request.

So is Python GAE feasible at this point? it doesn't seem that way?

On May 11, 3:40 am, Albert albertpa...@gmail.com wrote:
 I just checked the new proposed pricing 
 here...http://www.google.com/enterprise/appengine/appengine_pricing.html

 I'm confused why all the items below Channel API in the API Pricing
 models have check marks instead of a price per unit. What does that
 mean?

 And when they say, Frontend Instances, does that include instances
 handling task queues and crons?

 Thanks!

 Albert

 On May 11, 8:24 am, Ugorji ugo...@gmail.com wrote:







  eeIt's actually stated in the 
  blog:http://blog.golang.org/2011/05/go-and-google-app-engine.html

  Also, although goroutines and channels are present, when a Go app runs on
  App Engine only one thread is run in a given instance. That is, *all
  goroutines run in a single operating system thread, so there is no CPU
  parallelism* available for a given client request. We expect this
  restriction will be lifted at some point.

  So you can still use go routines, channels, etc - but we're back to like the
  days of green threads in java where the runtime multiplexes them on a single
  thread (which is fine). However, we don't get concurrent web requests on the
  same instance (which is not fine). Consequently, right now, Java Runtime
  seems to have a pretty significant advantage over the others (even over GO
  which has concurrency as some of its major advantages). And with instance
  pricing, it seems like it directly affects cost.

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Memcache fails on development server after 1.5 SDK upgrade in Eclipse

2011-05-10 Thread Isaiah Simpson

Title pretty much says it all. My application uses the GAE memcache to store 
query cursors. All was well earlier today prior to the 1.5 upgrade, but now 
I see the following error message in a CacheException whenever I try to 
create a cache instance using CacheFactory: 

Could not find class: 
'com.google.appengine.api.memcache.jsr107cache.GCacheFactory'

I figured it might have been a problem with my eclipse configuration or a 
glitch in the update process, so I double checked all settings, uninstalled 
and reinstalled plugins and SDKs, all to no avail. I then re-downloaded a 
fresh copy of eclipse, reinstalled everything, got a fresh copy of my code 
from source control, again, no luck. At this point I'm not sure what to try 
anymore and I'm wondering if anyone else is seeing this problem. 

For the record, I'm using the latest eclipse on OSX 10.6.7. 

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: 100 emails recipients newly created applications.

2011-05-10 Thread Kaan Soral

$0.01 / 100 recipients
$0.01 / 100 channels opened

WOW!

An app should be EXTREMELY monetized to use those services...

On May 11, 2:05 am, Andrei gml...@gmail.com wrote:
 No
 The old quota for free app was 2000, from today - 100

 On May 10, 5:52 pm, Cláudio Coelho ereb...@gmail.com wrote:







  Does this mean that after a while, an app will be allowed to send more
  emails?

-- 
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.

[google-appengine] Re: Is App Engine suddenly becoming more expensive???