[google-appengine] Re: Download code
Very interesting! But please explain, how should I install this? Should I place the src folder in the rrot directory? Should I copy the files? How should I avoid conflicts with my own scripts (.py, yaml, static, etc)? Luis On 9 feb, 20:44, niklasr wrote: > I includehttp://appfilesbrowser.googlecode.com/files/GAEAppFileBrowser.rar > and download deployed source to local. Datastore backup solution seems > to be approcket. > regards > Niklas --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Download code
You can't. But in future projects, you can add a script to do it to some extent (it doesn't work with static files AFAIK). Check this out: http://www.manatlan.com/blog/zipme___download_sources_of_your_gae_website__as_a_zip_file Luis On 9 feb, 15:19, Kaiser wrote: > Anybody knows how can I download all the files of a project from GAE? > Is it possible? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Should I be learning Python?
I agree :-) As I said above, simply give python one day to walk through its tutorial and play with the interactive interpreter. During this day, forget about all the other projects and *enjoy* the experience. On 5 feb, 12:25, James Ashley wrote: > LOL...that's pretty much *exactly* what I was thinking! > > On Feb 5, 8:27 am, dalenewman wrote: > > > bla bla bla -- you could have already learned python by the time > > you're done reading this post :-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Should I be learning Python?
You should set your priorities and make one step at a time. Learning python shoudn't be seen as a painful task. Actually, if you leave all other concerns behind and concentrate in learning it, without pressure, you'll enjoy it very much. Believe me, none of the other languages you mentioned will give you more joy than python. It's sheer simplicity, succinctness, and expressiveness will make you rediscover the pleasure of programming. Also, it is much more useful nowadays since it's cross-platform and runs virtually everywhere (windows, linux, mac, .Net, Java, etc). Just forget everything else and give python one single day (or an evening), open its tutorial and fire up the interactive interpreter. Then, come back and let me know what you think... Luis On Feb 4, 5:13 am, tempy wrote: > I am starting on App Engine and learning how to use it the only way I > know how, by starting a project. That also means learning Python. I > don't totally mind learning Python, but I'm already trying to teach > myself Objective-C and all the different syntaxes are starting to tax > my poor head. > > So I see in the road map that the next release should be March 09, and > also that that release should support a new language. I know that no > one knows (or can give away) what language will be supported, but, I > am more or less fluent in java/c#/c++/php, so... =) should I be > patient and wait until the next release? > > Or start trying to wrap my mind around python, while crying myself to > sleep over the absence of dear, dear semicolons. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: why java
Anyway, I'm sure any half-competent java programmer would be able to pick up python in a couple of hours. On Dec 31 2008, 8:02 pm, warreninaustintexas wrote: > Programmers are human beings - even though we work with logic-oriented > problems. We still have the natural human behavior of preferring > something familiar over something unfamiliar - even if the unfamiliar > environment is superior. Java is familiar because it is the primary > language taught in universities and it is one of the most commonly > used languages in enterprise software. > > From a pure functionality standpoint, there is no reason to have Java > on Google App Engine. App Engine is scalable from a system > architecture standpoint. Google could just as easily have old-school > BASIC as an App Engine language. Programmers have a familiarity with > Java, though, so that's why the interest in Java as an App Engine > language. > > On Dec 31, 10:04 am, Aramaki wrote: > > > Hi, a few months ago I started with python to get used to GAE. Before > > that, I was working with java and it is still a language that I > > appreciate. > > > But the fact is that after learning python I really don't see the > > advantage. My point is that python is strong enough to gracefully > > carry out almost any task conceived for GAE. It is fully OOP and > > strong enough. I use my eclipse like always so my question is guys: > > > - The comunity interest in implementing java will give you so much > > advantage or it is because you do no want to learn python --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: why java
Uh? On Dec 31, 4:45 pm, "Xavier Mathews" wrote: > Well not many people developers etc use that form of java anymore kinda like > c++ > > On 12/31/2008, Rodrigo Moraes wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Xavier Mathews wrote: > >> There Are So many Javas Out there to learn that its really up to the > >> user! Python is not really used anymore. But its nice to still know > >> it! > > > What do you mean by "Python is not really used anymore"? > > > -- rodrigo > > -- > Xavier A. Mathews > Student/Browser Specialist/Developer/Web-Master > Client Based Tech Support Specialist > Hazel Crest Illinois > xavieruni...@gmail.com¥xavieruni...@hotmail.com¥truestar...@yahoo.com > "Fear of a name, only increases fear of the thing itself." --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Django+Appengine vs Appengine
On Dec 15, 4:58 am, Bobby wrote: > In addition to this i'm seeing that the Django admin site has been > replaced by the AppEngine data viewer which isn't as powerful or > customizable right now, so i'm not seeing alot of reasons to use the > Django framework (other than wanting to). > > What are the main advantages of using Django on the AppEngine? (i can > see at least two disadvantages in having an additional layer and added > configuration/maintenance). Well, that's exactly what I think of using Django in appengine. You don't get one of its most useful features (admin), and you have a bloated layer on top of App Engine. In my case, I use a lightweight and easier option called "webpy". It is very similar to webapp, the built-in GAE framework, but more polished, simple and complete (actually, it was the inspiration behind webapp). Check it out: http://webpy.org Luis --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 Team: Please Make Django 1.0 A Higher Priority
Michael, you should know that what's important to you may not be high priority to others. Just look at the appengine issues web site and you'll see what people are interested in and which issues get most of the votes. For example, I don't use Django (although it seems to be a fine framework) because thank God App Engine supports any framework which is wsgi compliant. What's more, some of them work right out of the box without requiring any modification at all. Django is not equivalent to App Engine, nor it is fundamental component of it. It's just a (valuable) option for creating web apps in appengine. I also believe that criticizing Marzia's professionalism for writing "brake" instead of break is something completely absurd from your part. We all commit typos while writing, specially in the internet age, and you don't know what's Marzia's origin or mother tongue. So far he/she seems to be doing extremely well. Luis On Dec 18, 5:06 pm, "Michael Angerman" wrote: > Let me start out by saying that I think the App Engine is > an incredible product and has amazing potential. > > I think the choice of Python and Django as the initial > release of the product were brilliant and really got > the job done. > > I would like to hear from Google as to where they are REALLY > at with this product -- where they are going -- and how serious > they are about putting the necessary resources in place to make > this product a production reality. > > As a person who watches the industry very closely, I don't really > see the effort in place that could be there to make this happen, > and NOT porting to Django 1.0 by this time is just ONE example > of kind of dropping the ball so to speak... > > Again, I am on Google's side and want to see this product be > incredibly successful -- I am just extremely disappointed with the > execution so far... > > For months, I have been anxiously awaiting Google to put > in the hard work to make the switch to Django 1.0 a reality. > > Months ago, I had conversations with Paul McDonald regarding > this issue, and still nothing... This is extremely disappointing. > > In my mind, it shows Google's lack of serious commitment > to the App Engine. Actions really do speak louder than words. > > Another interesting note that people at Google should seriously > take a look at is the amount of traffic on this mail list. It has dropped > off dramatically from the glory days and initial months of this product > release. > > I am really baffled as to why Google didn't keep the momentum going, > you had such hype around this product -- and all you had to do was follow > through with execution... > > The drop off in participation in this mail list is a direct sign > and correlation of the momentum slowing down... > > Google, take the "bull by the horns" and re-ignite the user community > by delivering to us -- YOUR CUSTOMER -- what we want. > > Django 1.0 is just one example of something the user community has > been anxiously asking for -- there are many other things... > > Thank you for your continued support, > > Sincerely, > Michael I Angerman > Albuquerque, New Mexico > > - > > Below are Marzia Niccolai's comments Dec 12 regarding this issue... > > Marzia -- couple of comments > > - this an incredibly weak public response > > - this response COMPLETELY shows the lack of professionalism and commitment > on Google's part to deliver what it takes to make the App Engine a TRUE > reality that we as customers can count on to run a robust, professional > business on your platform. > > - brake should be break > - seems likely -- this is a technical issue that HAS TO be worked out by > Google > > I would say more here -- but if you read the words of this response closely, > its a reflection of many things that could be better... > > Again, in summary -- I am not trying to be overly critical -- I am just > trying > to some how get some results -- and again Django 1.0 would be it... > > -- > > Hi Alex, > > We are definitely interested in offering Django 1.0 with App Engine in the > future. However, it seems likely that including Django 1.0 as the default > Django version with App Engine would need to be part of an api version > change, since such a change would likely brake existing apps. > > In terms of the high CPU warnings, we are generally working on a solution > that will lesson the affect of such warnings on applications, so we hope we > can address this soon not just for this case, but in general. > > As for the time concern, there isn't much right now that can be done. But > as your application increases in popularity, it's more likely people will > see an already warm interpreter and thus not have to wait for a new > initialization. > > -Marzia --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google Ap
[google-appengine] Re: How to pass the password to "appcfg.py update" in a python script?
I read many threads on the subject and tried many variants, but I still couldn't figure out how to do it. What I know for sure is that using the subprocess module is the way to go, since it aims to replace all the older solutions, but I can't make it work... Let's say that my appengine directory is "C:\Program Files\Google \google_appengine", and I want to update "mysite1" (email is [EMAIL PROTECTED] and password "blah"). How should I use subprocess to automate this task? Can someone show me an example? Luis --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: Will there ever be a DictProperty in datastore?
There are other options too, such as pickling a dictionary into a blob
property, or saving its string representation into a StringProperty
and then use eval() to get it back "alive".
However, all these have issues and I guess that performance-wise they
are suboptimal...
On Oct 30, 1:16 pm, Anthony <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know if this will help but I've built a custom property for
> dealing with basic dict items. It's based on StringListProperty, so
> you still have some indexing for searching on keys, or "key:value"
> pairs.
>
> The code has not been tested much yet...
>
> class DictListProperty(db.StringListProperty):
> def __init__(self, *args, **kwds):
> #cache reads so we only process list once
> self._cache = None
> super(DictListProperty, self).__init__(*args, **kwds)
>
> def get_value_for_datastore(self, model_instance):
> value = super(DictListProperty,
> self).get_value_for_datastore(model_instance)
> if value is None:
> return None
> else:
> #convert dict to list of key:value
> l=[]
> for k, v in value.items():
> #expand any lists out (for tag lists etc)
> if isinstance(v,list):
> l.append(k)#add empty key with no
> value so we know this is a list
> for i in v:
> l.append(k+":"+str(i))
> else:
> l.append(k+":"+str(v))
> return self.data_type(l)
>
> def validate(self, value):
> return value
>
> def make_value_from_datastore(self, value):
> if self._cache is None:
> if value is None:
> return None
> elif isinstance(value, list):
> self._cache = {}
> #split list of key:values back into dict
> for v in value:
> s=v.split(":",1)
> if len(s)==1 and
> self._cache.has_key(s[0]): #special case for
> single item list
> self._cache[s[0]] =
> list(self._cache[s[0]])
> elif len(s)==1: #special case for
> empty list
> self._cache[s[0]] = []
> elif self._cache.has_key(s[0]): #add
> to list
> self._cache[s[0]] =
> list(self._cache[s[0]])
>
> self._cache[s[0]].append(s[1])
> else:
> self._cache[s[0]]=s[1]
> return self._cache
> else:
> return None
> else:
> return self._cache
>
> #Tests..
>
> class TestModel(db.Model):
> d = DictListProperty()
>
> #Main Test
> t = TestModel()
> t.d = {"a":1,"b":"2test","c":"3:test'here'withsemicolon
> +junk&in,string"} #basic key:value structure, non-strings saved as
> string
> t.d["list"]=[0,1,2,3] #lists are also supported, expanded and stored
> as d,d:0,d:1,d:2 etc. so can be indexed.
> t.d["empty"]=[] #empty list will return as empty list, stored as just
> "key"
> t.put()
>
> t = TestModel.get(p.key())
> #t = Test.all().filter("d = ","b:2test").get() #for equality you need
> to combine full "key:value" as string
> #t = Test.all().filter("d = ","list:2").get() #lists are expanded for
> indexing
> #t = Test.all().filter("d >= ","c:").get() #inequalities can be user
> to to test for just keys.
> self.response.out.write(t.d) #returns a dict
> self.response.out.write(t.d["list"]) #lists are re-combined
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: Will there ever be a DictProperty in datastore?
Hey, don't forget to star this issue: http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=805&q=dictproperty&colspec=ID%20Type%20Status%20Priority%20Stars%20Owner%20Summary%20Log%20Component On Oct 29, 9:30 am, "Dr. Ernie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I agree - in a couple of cases I have created dual lists in a model, > > rather than have the overhead of pickling. This has the bonus of > > allowing both "key" and value be searchable, but I'd love native > > dicts. > > +1 > > I'm considering sticking JSON in a field to deal with this problem, > but native dicts would be much nicer. :-) --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Will there ever be a DictProperty in datastore?
Is there any reason for not having implemented a DictProperty in datastore? Are there plans to implement it? I believe it would be great to have native dictionaries in datastore, and that it would simplify a lot many development tasks. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: How to modify property output?
I'm not sure I understand your question, but I guess this can help you. Lets say that you want to Blah.get().title to return title in upper case. You create a property as follows: class Blah(db.Model): """Example""" _name = db.StringProperty() _title = db.StringProperty() _address = db.StringProperty() def gettitle(self): return self._title.upper() def settitle(self, x): self._title = x title = property(gettitle, settitle) On Oct 23, 2:21 pm, Nefarious <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Newbie question here... > > Say I have model like the below: > > class Blah(db.Model): > """Example""" > > name = db.StringProperty() > title = db.StringProperty() > address = db.StringProperty() > > How would I modify the output from the datastore before it gets to the > caller? So, I want to modify the output of a call like this: > Blah.get().title and do some custom code on the title property. I > assume I subclass and override a get method somewhere, but I am not > clear where. I assumed I would subclass StringProperty but that > doesn't seem to have a method I need for this operation. Any ideas? > 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: Java support on GAE
There's already another thread on the subject: http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/2dea6535194473b5 On Oct 21, 3:20 pm, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Has anyone else heard of this? I figured this group would be buzzing > with this news, but who knows. According to this article, Java support > is soon coming to GAE: > > http://news.cnet.com/8301-13846_3-10070321-62.html --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: Why python?
My Kung-Fu is better than yours! On Oct 10, 3:50 am, Leo(雷傲) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hate python's strange grammer! It's not neccesary to build a new > style of grammer since the c-like grammer is so successful ! > > And I think the "OOP" is not so great. The procedure programming > language is still powerful and will continue its power! --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
