[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
I understand and also worry a little about the long-term roadmap for App Engine as a significant Google offering. AWS has a much larger community and with the addition of persistent storage and sorting of Query results, Amazon is rapidly shoring up their deficiencies. That said, the two services target different audiences since you still have to do a lot of infrastructure management to get something like App Engine on top of AWS. (Or you can pay RightScale or others to do it.) Also, App Engine is significantly younger than AWS. Forum traffic and articles on Amazon EC2 was light at the beginning as well. IMHO, I think a lot of programmers are waiting for pay-as-you-go and possibly https. Beta AWS services start with pricing and charging at launch. EC2/SimpleDB programmers will be more self-selected than Google App Engine developers because you have to know the full stack (from OS on AMI on up). I can also see a lot of small development shops going the App Engine route because (1) free resources up to a certain point and (2) little infrastructure issues. I've been impressed with the Google App Engine team but also wonder how much support they can draw from Google. Jeff Bezos attends AWS events and provides a clear signal that they view AWS as a core offering. I think Yahoo management will do the same if Yahoo launches their version of App Engine. Having stars like GvR on the App Engine team sends a signal as well, but it's different than having top executives talk up the service. On Aug 27, 3:09 pm, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > all we get is minor patches. > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Good points. A little feedback would go a long way here. Especially on the SSL issue. Right now this has been a hobbyist endeavor for me because of the lack of a clear cut roadmap. GAE is funbut fun does not pay the bills! On Aug 27, 6:37 pm, Bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I understand and also worry a little about the long-term roadmap for > App Engine as a significant Google offering. AWS has a much larger > community and with the addition of persistent storage and sorting of > Query results, Amazon is rapidly shoring up their deficiencies. That > said, the two services target different audiences since you still have > to do a lot of infrastructure management to get something like App > Engine on top of AWS. (Or you can pay RightScale or others to do it.) > > Also, App Engine is significantly younger than AWS. Forum traffic and > articles on Amazon EC2 was light at the beginning as well. IMHO, I > think a lot of programmers are waiting for pay-as-you-go and possibly > https. Beta AWS services start with pricing and charging at launch. > EC2/SimpleDB programmers will be more self-selected than Google App > Engine developers because you have to know the full stack (from OS on > AMI on up). I can also see a lot of small development shops going the > App Engine route because (1) free resources up to a certain point and > (2) little infrastructure issues. > > I've been impressed with the Google App Engine team but also wonder > how much support they can draw from Google. Jeff Bezos attends AWS > events and provides a clear signal that they view AWS as a core > offering. I think Yahoo management will do the same if Yahoo launches > their version of App Engine. Having stars like GvR on the App Engine > team sends a signal as well, but it's different than having top > executives talk up the service. > > On Aug 27, 3:09 pm, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > all we get is minor patches. > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > half the team to firefight problems on another project?- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
I also agree completely!!! Lack of roadmap and GAE team feedback is a very serious issue!!! On Aug 27, 3:09 pm, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > all we get is minor patches. > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
This is a sentiment I can relate to. With QueryWithAttributes and sorting, and the Block Store before that, Amazon is really improving their offering fast. S3-Europe shows they are sensitive to legitimate concerns of users, and we can hope other offerings will be Europe- based in the near future too. SSL has always been there. This kind of momentum seems to be lacking with Google App Engine. But most worrying to me is the Google Quota system. When Google does metrics on the uptime of their service, they should not count the uptime of their service, but the availability of their service to me, that is what matters to me. In particular, it is totally unacceptable that a GAE-based site becomes unreachable for minutes, let alone for hours or better parts of the day. Clearly, attacks should be avoided by denying traffic when it ramps up suspiciously fast, but bringing down the customer's site all together is out of the question. This Google practice has got me more sceptable about the usability of GAE for Web 2.0 applications (as opposed to competing services). Also, Microsoft SSDS suffered a major breakdown this week but the communication on the topic was very good. There is room for improvement obviously, but very professional already. It is to be expected that they announce their GAE competitor on October 27 or 28, as well as notable improvements to their SSDS service. I'm sure Google will shore up their deficiencies over time as Amazon is doing. But an acknowledgement of the issue, and a timeline on when it might be resolved is important to win and retain the hearts and minds of the developers. Even if that timeline indication is simply "after 2009". At least then we know we need to engineer around it. Having said that, I do believe there is substantial merit to the way Google is approaching this, with potential automatic scale-up not yet available with the other services. But as said by the other guys on this thread, the communication is really insufficient at this point. Filip On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > all we get is minor patches. > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Filip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > But most worrying to me is the Google Quota system. When Google does > metrics on the uptime of their service, they should not count the > uptime of their service, but the availability of their service to me, > that is what matters to me. In particular, it is totally unacceptable > that a GAE-based site becomes unreachable for minutes, let alone for > hours or better parts of the day. Clearly, attacks should be avoided > by denying traffic when it ramps up suspiciously fast, but bringing > down the customer's site all together is out of the question. It's not a customer's site. You're not Google's customer until you start paying them, and when you start paying them the quotas won't bring down your site because you'll be paying them for the usage over the quota. Instead of comparing their free preview service to S3, try comparing it to any other free hosting service out there. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
We don't have the option of paying Google yet, but I think most of us plan to become paying customers later. What's worrying to me is not the quota system per se, which makes sense for a free service, but the way people are reporting that they seem to be exceeding quota far more rapidly than appears justified by their usage. This seems to imply a potential of unexpectedly high charges, once we become paying customers. On 8/28/08, Wooble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Filip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But most worrying to me is the Google Quota system. When Google does > > metrics on the uptime of their service, they should not count the > > uptime of their service, but the availability of their service to me, > > that is what matters to me. In particular, it is totally unacceptable > > that a GAE-based site becomes unreachable for minutes, let alone for > > hours or better parts of the day. Clearly, attacks should be avoided > > by denying traffic when it ramps up suspiciously fast, but bringing > > down the customer's site all together is out of the question. > > It's not a customer's site. You're not Google's customer until you > start paying them, and when you start paying them the quotas won't > bring down your site because you'll be paying them for the usage over > the quota. Instead of comparing their free preview service to S3, try > comparing it to any other free hosting service out there. > > > --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
> Instead of comparing their free preview service to S3, try > comparing it to any other free hosting service out there. While that's a reasonable comparison for hobbyists, there's a lot of us using App Engine with grander aspirations. We want to build easily scaled web applications (real businesses) on top of App Engine. I wouldn't have spent much time with App Engine if it were going to remain just a free hosting service with quotas. If you look at the front page of App Engine, it's clear that Google wants to handle real businesses as well. So for developers looking to build scalable apps that could potentially grow "to millions of users," the best comparison right now is to Amazon's cloud computing effort and the App Engine-like businesses that are being built on it (RightScale, Heroku, AppJet, etc). As a preview user, it's useful to voice your concerns and issues in a reasonable manner. Part of it is through the issue tracker, but this board is a valuable sounding board for developers. I *want* Google to succeed since I'm putting my time and ventures into it. The more effectively they address these concerns, the better they'll look compared to AWS, and that fosters a strong developer community. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
I can definitely sympathize with the sentiments here. I really wish Google did offer better communication. However, I just wanted to point out: Jaiko is a company acquired by Google quite a while back. A TechCrunch post today ( http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/jaiku-uncaps-invites-migrates-to-google-infrastructure/ ) links to a previous blog entry, which indicates their intention to convert the app entirely to App Engine: http://www.jaiku.com/blog/2008/04/08/wroom-were-moving-to-google-app-engine/ This seems to be a promising sign of investment in AE on Google's part (although the move was almost certainly made solely for that purpose). On Aug 27, 5:09 pm, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > all we get is minor patches. > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
"Google technology stack" != AppEngine Google technology stack is the distributed filesystem, is the search API, the mail API, MapReduce and everything else Google offers from it's vast datacenters. AppEngine is a drop in the bucket, a small window into that stack. Google Analytics is really a cannibalized and repackaged Urchin. Expect something similar out of the Jaiku "revolution." A lot of heavier-duty Urchin users felt left in the dust when Google picked apart the offering and halted new development. Again, expect something similar out of Jaiku -- because Google has become a place companies go to die. (GrandCentral anyone?) On Fri, Aug 29, 2008 at 12:31 AM, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > I can definitely sympathize with the sentiments here. I really wish > Google did offer better communication. However, I just wanted to point > out: > > Jaiko is a company acquired by Google quite a while back. A TechCrunch > post today ( > http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/08/28/jaiku-uncaps-invites-migrates-to-google-infrastructure/ > ) links to a previous blog entry, which indicates their intention to > convert the app entirely to App Engine: > > http://www.jaiku.com/blog/2008/04/08/wroom-were-moving-to-google-app-engine/ > > This seems to be a promising sign of investment in AE on Google's part > (although the move was almost certainly made solely for that purpose). > > > On Aug 27, 5:09 pm, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > > My concerns center around Google's commitment to the App Engine > > project. Compared to Amazon's Web Service forums this place feels like > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > all we get is minor patches. > > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > > What's happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > half the team to firefight problems on another project? > > > -- Thanks- - Andy Badera - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - (518) 641-1280 - http://higherefficiency.net - http://changeroundup.com/ - http://flipbitsnotburgers.blogspot.com/ - http://andrew.badera.us/ - Google me: http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew+badera --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Sorry, but I don't agree. I guess that's because I am not interested in a free hosting company. I need a professional platform provider that I can base business applications on. If you are someone interested in making an application for your friends and family, then we are perhaps not talking about the same thing. On this forum, the "you are not paying" argument has been used over and over. But I am NOT paying Microsoft to notify me of downtimes of their SSDS service. Not paying them to inform me of their roadmap. The Microsoft Chief Technology Officer himself will be announcing the next step on their cloud offering in October. There is good communication over there, which certainly can be improved but even when they can't say something, they tell us why and on what date they will release the information, providing the needed clarity. Google has been notorious for poor communication on many of their consumer-oriented applications, but when it comes to business applications, that is just not good enough. And since I am building a business application, that is the standard I judge them on. The reason why Amazon is praised, I believe, is not because they have the perfect answer, but because they had the guts to call their product 1.0 and go with it. But let's look at your argument. Let's compare with other services out there (free or otherwise). Can you name any who has a policy as poor as Google's when it comes to quota? I can't think of any big name. A hosting company that says you can host here, but when you get a sudden spike in requests, they'll shut down your site for the rest of the day, even if you are not over quota on any metric. Who else does that? How could that ever be web 2.0-ish. And Google is not in competing with the free or obscure services, they are competing for the business market with Amazon, Microsoft and soon Yahoo! and likely others as well. It does not matter if they have a different business model. Who they compete with is evident from their announced pricing schemes. Google is in competition with those services TODAY, not tomorrow or next year, and waiving the beta flag is no excuse. Every day, people are deciding which platform to develop for. Talking about what is coming at what time, helps people to decide whether they are willing to walk with you on that trip to release to market. The "technology preview" argument was good back in March, but today, it no longer is. Google has real experience since then, and there is nothing preventing it from communicating. Secrecy doesn't help them defend against competitors, the better communication with competitors is exactly why they are losing developers. Going live at the end of the year seems unlikely given the amount of serious problems that remain unaddressed. But the cloud is not waiting around for Google to be ready. This is not a market dominated by Google, and in fact Google does not even have the best cards. They do not have the best track record in the industry for attracting developers. What is worse, public and private companies abroad are notoriously scared of keeping data on Google's (US-based!) machines precisely because the company is all about information processing, and because of US legislature. Moreover, Google is unknown as platform to the CIO's and IT managers. So they are effectively the underdog, who need to be substantially better than the competition to even have a chance at cracking the business market. What they do have is a smart scaling method, an early integrated hosting environment and an early jump to market, which gives them some leverage. I fear they are loosing their early jump as others are moving faster, and I'm pretty sure competitors are working on smarter scaling and better integration methods too. And I am one of those in the business arena who actually is a strong pro supporter of Google. Filip. On Aug 28, 6:59 pm, Wooble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Filip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > But most worrying to me is the Google Quota system. When Google does > > metrics on the uptime of their service, they should not count the > > uptime of their service, but the availability of their service to me, > > that is what matters to me. In particular, it is totally unacceptable > > that a GAE-based site becomes unreachable for minutes, let alone for > > hours or better parts of the day. Clearly, attacks should be avoided > > by denying traffic when it ramps up suspiciously fast, but bringing > > down the customer's site all together is out of the question. > > It's not a customer's site. You're not Google's customer until you > start paying them, and when you start paying them the quotas won't > bring down your site because you'll be paying them for the usage over > the quota. Instead of comparing their free preview service to S3, try > comparing it to any other free hosting service out there. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this messag
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
I completely agree with all this, and will also mention all the talk that you can start with the free service while you're in garage stage, and start paying once you have real traffic. You'll never get there if the site keeps going down. I was also under the impression that GAE is the same infrastructure Google runs their apps on, which kinda suggests that it should be pretty solid. All the weird glitches are puzzling. On 8/29/08, Filip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Sorry, but I don't agree. I guess that's because I am not interested > in a free hosting company. I need a professional platform provider > that I can base business applications on. If you are someone > interested in making an application for your friends and family, then > we are perhaps not talking about the same thing. > > On this forum, the "you are not paying" argument has been used over > and over. But I am NOT paying Microsoft to notify me of downtimes of > their SSDS service. Not paying them to inform me of their roadmap. The > Microsoft Chief Technology Officer himself will be announcing the next > step on their cloud offering in October. There is good communication > over there, which certainly can be improved but even when they can't > say something, they tell us why and on what date they will release the > information, providing the needed clarity. Google has been notorious > for poor communication on many of their consumer-oriented > applications, but when it comes to business applications, that is just > not good enough. And since I am building a business application, that > is the standard I judge them on. > > The reason why Amazon is praised, I believe, is not because they have > the perfect answer, but because they had the guts to call their > product 1.0 and go with it. > > But let's look at your argument. Let's compare with other services out > there (free or otherwise). Can you name any who has a policy as poor > as Google's when it comes to quota? I can't think of any big name. A > hosting company that says you can host here, but when you get a sudden > spike in requests, they'll shut down your site for the rest of the > day, even if you are not over quota on any metric. Who else does that? > How could that ever be web 2.0-ish. > > And Google is not in competing with the free or obscure services, they > are competing for the business market with Amazon, Microsoft and soon > Yahoo! and likely others as well. It does not matter if they have a > different business model. Who they compete with is evident from their > announced pricing schemes. > > Google is in competition with those services TODAY, not tomorrow or > next year, and waiving the beta flag is no excuse. Every day, people > are deciding which platform to develop for. Talking about what is > coming at what time, helps people to decide whether they are willing > to walk with you on that trip to release to market. The "technology > preview" argument was good back in March, but today, it no longer is. > Google has real experience since then, and there is nothing preventing > it from communicating. Secrecy doesn't help them defend against > competitors, the better communication with competitors is exactly why > they are losing developers. > > Going live at the end of the year seems unlikely given the amount of > serious problems that remain unaddressed. But the cloud is not waiting > around for Google to be ready. This is not a market dominated by > Google, and in fact Google does not even have the best cards. They do > not have the best track record in the industry for attracting > developers. What is worse, public and private companies abroad are > notoriously scared of keeping data on Google's (US-based!) machines > precisely because the company is all about information processing, and > because of US legislature. Moreover, Google is unknown as platform to > the CIO's and IT managers. So they are effectively the underdog, who > need to be substantially better than the competition to even have a > chance at cracking the business market. What they do have is a smart > scaling method, an early integrated hosting environment and an early > jump to market, which gives them some leverage. I fear they are > loosing their early jump as others are moving faster, and I'm pretty > sure competitors are working on smarter scaling and better integration > methods too. > > And I am one of those in the business arena who actually is a strong > pro supporter of Google. > > Filip. > > > > On Aug 28, 6:59 pm, Wooble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 28, 12:27 pm, Filip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > But most worrying to me is the Google Quota system. When Google does > > > metrics on the uptime of their service, they should not count the > > > uptime of their service, but the availability of their service to me, > > > that is what matters to me. In particular, it is totally unacceptable > > > that a GAE-based site becomes unreachable for minutes, let alone for > > > hour
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
> And Google is not in competing with the free or obscure services, they > are competing for the business market with Amazon, Microsoft and soon > Yahoo! and likely others as well. I missed where anyone from Google claimed to be looking for businesses to develop their commercial applications on App Engine. Do you have any pointers to such public statements? > Google is in competition with those services TODAY I don't see how App Engine is "in competition" with Amazon. The services (GAE vs EC2/S3/SQS/etc.) are not comparable. Amazon's offerings are much lower-level, and require a great deal of tech savvy to exploit. I use (and adore) the Amazon stack where appropriate, but would never even think of using it for a web app like my wordle.net. It would be like building a whole factory, from scratch, to sell lemonade from my driveway. I don't know enough about the Microsoft and Yahoo offerings to compare them. The App Engine platform is a way to build massively scalable CRUD- style web apps by sticking to a few simple constraints. It's perfect for situational apps, one-offs, hobby projects, all of which can now survive slashdotting without arcane architectural hacks. What's not to love about that? Why criticize it for not being something it isn't designed to be? If I've missed any claims to the contrary from Google, again, please point me to 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
> The App Engine platform is a way to build massively scalable CRUD- > style web apps by sticking to a few simple constraints. It's perfect > for situational apps, one-offs, hobby projects, all of which can now > survive slashdotting without arcane architectural hacks. What's not to > love about that? Why criticize it for not being something it isn't > designed to be? > I missed where anyone from Google claimed to be looking for businesses > to develop their commercial applications on App Engine. Do you have > any pointers to such public statements? I think App Engine *is* targeting startups and other small businesses without the time, interest, or money to build a scalable infrastructure around them. >From http://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=489 -- the AE project manager: “We’re much more suitable for the consumer marketplace during the preview release.” Now let's think about this. Google creates an infrastructure to create web applications with a seemingly infinite amount of no-hassle scaling (for a price, of course). Are they really targeting Joe Brown who is creating a website to share pictures of his new kid with his family? Of course not. The quota is theoretically capable of serving 5 million users for free. If we are just talking about mere hobbyists with a few hits a day, how would users ever exceed the quota and allow Google to charge them money?! But if Google is shooting for businesses, why did the product manager say it's best suited for the consumer marketplace ("DURING THE PREVIEW RELEASE")? "...citing as examples the lack of an SLA and the ceilings on usage that result in a denial of service when exceeding the limits..." Sounds like two problems that are most certainly going to be fixed after the preview. > I don't see how App Engine is "in competition" with Amazon. The > services (GAE vs EC2/S3/SQS/etc.) are not comparable. Amazon's > offerings are much lower-level, and require a great deal of tech savvy > to exploit. I use (and adore) the Amazon stack where appropriate, but > would never even think of using it for a web app like my wordle.net. > It would be like building a whole factory, from scratch, to sell > lemonade from my driveway. A lot of websites hosted on Amazon are just that--regular old CRUD apps. GAE doesn't offer anything close to the control that Amazon does, but I bet there are a lot of Amazon customers that would trade their control for the worry-free scaling of AE. They both are attacking the same problem, but very differently. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Clear roadmap is a real must! People are asking for this in a oot of discussions, but there is no info from Google yet. To bad I think. See also: http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/aab96f8adcb99725/00b76bbfc5a43a65?lnk=gst&q=overdijk#00b76bbfc5a43a65 On 30 aug, 04:02, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The App Engine platform is a way to build massively scalable CRUD- > > style web apps by sticking to a few simple constraints. It's perfect > > for situational apps, one-offs, hobby projects, all of which can now > > survive slashdotting without arcane architectural hacks. What's not to > > love about that? Why criticize it for not being something it isn't > > designed to be? > > I missed where anyone from Google claimed to be looking for businesses > > to develop their commercial applications on App Engine. Do you have > > any pointers to such public statements? > > I think App Engine *is* targeting startups and other small businesses > without the time, interest, or money to build a scalable > infrastructure around them. > > Fromhttp://blogs.zdnet.com/SAAS/?p=489-- the AE project manager: > > “We’re much more suitable for the consumer marketplace during the > preview release.” > > Now let's think about this. Google creates an infrastructure to create > web applications with a seemingly infinite amount of no-hassle scaling > (for a price, of course). Are they really targeting Joe Brown who is > creating a website to share pictures of his new kid with his family? > Of course not. The quota is theoretically capable of serving 5 million > users for free. If we are just talking about mere hobbyists with a few > hits a day, how would users ever exceed the quota and allow Google to > charge them money?! > > But if Google is shooting for businesses, why did the product manager > say it's best suited for the consumer marketplace ("DURING THE PREVIEW > RELEASE")? > > "...citing as examples the lack of an SLA and the ceilings on usage > that result in a denial of service when exceeding the limits..." > > Sounds like two problems that are most certainly going to be fixed > after the preview. > > > I don't see how App Engine is "in competition" with Amazon. The > > services (GAE vs EC2/S3/SQS/etc.) are not comparable. Amazon's > > offerings are much lower-level, and require a great deal of tech savvy > > to exploit. I use (and adore) the Amazon stack where appropriate, but > > would never even think of using it for a web app like my wordle.net. > > It would be like building a whole factory, from scratch, to sell > > lemonade from my driveway. > > A lot of websites hosted on Amazon are just that--regular old CRUD > apps. GAE doesn't offer anything close to the control that Amazon > does, but I bet there are a lot of Amazon customers that would trade > their control for the worry-free scaling of AE. They both are > attacking the same problem, but very differently. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Doubts about Django Template http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/3503204aed78e934# On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > all we get is minor patches. > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Davide, I really don't see the Django template language being a valid concern at all. It is just a library that Google provides, no one is forcing you to use it. And further, personally I think that if you find Django templates too limiting, you probably don't fully understand it. I switched to Django after coding with Ruby on Rails and PHP, both of which allow you to embed code right in your templates. It was a difficult transition at first, but the restrictions placed by the Django template language make sense, and they encourage good programming practices of the separation between programming logic and presentation code. And if you're concerned about reusing blocks of code, the concerns about {% with %} are only relevant to Django < 1.0, and the devs have been telling users to use SVN (which is very stable) and not 0.96 for MONTHS now. (Yeah, AE only supports 0.96 out-of-the-box, but that makes sense. Why would Google want to track SVN? I just have my own checkout of Django I use. And besides, Django 1.0 is due for release next week. I guarantee Google will support it.) And besides, I have never had to use {% with %}. Most code repetition I come across is more logically solved with block inheritance. I strongly recommend you upgrade to the latest Django beta and read the template docs. And if it really doesn't work for you, there are plenty of other options. This post is really about the problems that Google has with communications about where App Engine is going (and WHEN). On Aug 30, 4:56 am, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Doubts about Django > Templatehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... > > On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > all we get is minor patches. > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
No no, this post is for all: "Having doubts about AppEngine" 1) """My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine project""" My concerns center around Google’s commitment to Django template. 2) """Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go unanswered for months""" Also about the template system. 3) """Communication with the developer community here is abysmal compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies such as Microsoft Redhat or Amazon""" Django is free, no investment. On Aug 30, 9:05 pm, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Davide, > > I really don't see the Django template language being a valid concern > at all. It is just a library that Google provides, no one is forcing > you to use it. > > And further, personally I think that if you find Django templates too > limiting, you probably don't fully understand it. I switched to Django > after coding with Ruby on Rails and PHP, both of which allow you to > embed code right in your templates. It was a difficult transition at > first, but the restrictions placed by the Django template language > make sense, and they encourage good programming practices of the > separation between programming logic and presentation code. > > And if you're concerned about reusing blocks of code, the concerns > about {% with %} are only relevant to Django < 1.0, and the devs have > been telling users to use SVN (which is very stable) and not 0.96 for > MONTHS now. (Yeah, AE only supports 0.96 out-of-the-box, but that > makes sense. Why would Google want to track SVN? I just have my own > checkout of Django I use. And besides, Django 1.0 is due for release > next week. I guarantee Google will support it.) And besides, I have > never had to use {% with %}. Most code repetition I come across is > more logically solved with block inheritance. > > I strongly recommend you upgrade to the latest Django beta and read > the template docs. And if it really doesn't work for you, there are > plenty of other options. > > This post is really about the problems that Google has with > communications about where App Engine is going (and WHEN). > > On Aug 30, 4:56 am, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Doubts about Django > > Templatehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... > > > On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > > all we get is minor patches. > > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:05 PM, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Davide, > > I really don't see the Django template language being a valid concern > at all. It is just a library that Google provides, no one is forcing > you to use it. I think for new comers to Python, it IS presented as the only choice as many people would have difficulty "monkey-patching" another template engine, as there have been issues in getting, to my knowledge at least, Mako and Genshi to fully work on appengine. It seems like this new cookbook area would be a good spot to for developers of those other templates to put their integration recipes: http://appengine-cookbook.appspot.com/ > > And further, personally I think that if you find Django templates too > limiting, you probably don't fully understand it. It is still very controversial in the Python community to not include the ability to run Python in the template. I think it is very appropriate for newcomers to question how and why something works the way it does. It is far from a foregone conclusion that Django templates are the superior way to accomplish templating in Python. I have personally observed two PHP developers turned off from wanting to use Python ever again, because they were forced to use Django templates in a project. Of course we Python programmers could say, wow your "stupid" because you don't do it my way, it is the best. On the other hand maybe they have a point. Sometimes, in my opinion too, some Python in the template is the easiest way to solve a problem. They were a bit offended that this design decision was not delegated to them, instead of forced upon them. I think it is ok, to question this decision if you are from another language. Here are links to blog entries by Shannon Behrens, a guy who wrote a Python web framework in 2001, in which he also questions the wisdom of Django templates: http://jjinux.blogspot.com/search?q=django+template I don't consider him to not understand Django templates, yet he also doesn't use them. This is really a personal decision though, as many people are happy with Django templates. To each their own. One thing I do disagree though is that if you don't like some portion of Django like templates, or the URL dispatch, you don't know how it works. I think many people know how Django works, but only like certain parts of it. I happen to really like the admin interface and the URL dispatching, and not the template or ORM. In addition, I have personally done some very large Django projects, and have some issues with doing things with the Django templates. I don't particularly care for them, and would prefer Genshi or Mako, although they aren't horrible either. One gripe I have with Google is that they need to correct their documentation here: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/gettingstarted/usingwebapp.html It states that app engine supports: Django, CherryPy, Pylons, and web.py This is actually incorrect, as many of the components, like templates, in Pylons are not fully tested and working. Hopefully this gets addressed soon. I switched to Django > after coding with Ruby on Rails and PHP, both of which allow you to > embed code right in your templates. It was a difficult transition at > first, but the restrictions placed by the Django template language > make sense, and they encourage good programming practices of the > separation between programming logic and presentation code. > > And if you're concerned about reusing blocks of code, the concerns > about {% with %} are only relevant to Django < 1.0, and the devs have > been telling users to use SVN (which is very stable) and not 0.96 for > MONTHS now. (Yeah, AE only supports 0.96 out-of-the-box, but that > makes sense. Why would Google want to track SVN? I just have my own > checkout of Django I use. And besides, Django 1.0 is due for release > next week. I guarantee Google will support it.) And besides, I have > never had to use {% with %}. Most code repetition I come across is > more logically solved with block inheritance. > > I strongly recommend you upgrade to the latest Django beta and read > the template docs. And if it really doesn't work for you, there are > plenty of other options. > > This post is really about the problems that Google has with > communications about where App Engine is going (and WHEN). > > > On Aug 30, 4:56 am, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Doubts about Django >> Templatehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... >> >> On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my >> > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a >> > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. >> >> > My concerns center around Google's commitment to the App Engine >> > project. Compared to Amazon's Web Service forums this place feels like >> > a technical
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
Davide, nobody cares about your personal concerns around Google’s commitment to Django templates. There are plenty of other frameworks and template languages, choose the one which fits your needs or if none fits your needs build one yourself (aren't you doing that already, the JS thingy ??), I am happy that Google has chosen the most popular one in Python land. regards Roberto On Aug 30, 4:34 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > No no, this post is for all: "Having doubts about AppEngine" > > 1) """My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > project""" > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to Django template. > > 2) """Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks > go unanswered for months""" > > Also about the template system. > > 3) """Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft Redhat or Amazon""" > > Django is free, no investment. > > On Aug 30, 9:05 pm, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Davide, > > > I really don't see the Django template language being a valid concern > > at all. It is just a library that Google provides, no one is forcing > > you to use it. > > > And further, personally I think that if you find Django templates too > > limiting, you probably don't fully understand it. I switched to Django > > after coding with Ruby on Rails and PHP, both of which allow you to > > embed code right in your templates. It was a difficult transition at > > first, but the restrictions placed by the Django template language > > make sense, and they encourage good programming practices of the > > separation between programming logic and presentation code. > > > And if you're concerned about reusing blocks of code, the concerns > > about {% with %} are only relevant to Django < 1.0, and the devs have > > been telling users to use SVN (which is very stable) and not 0.96 for > > MONTHS now. (Yeah, AE only supports 0.96 out-of-the-box, but that > > makes sense. Why would Google want to track SVN? I just have my own > > checkout of Django I use. And besides, Django 1.0 is due for release > > next week. I guarantee Google will support it.) And besides, I have > > never had to use {% with %}. Most code repetition I come across is > > more logically solved with block inheritance. > > > I strongly recommend you upgrade to the latest Django beta and read > > the template docs. And if it really doesn't work for you, there are > > plenty of other options. > > > This post is really about the problems that Google has with > > communications about where App Engine is going (and WHEN). > > > On Aug 30, 4:56 am, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Doubts about Django > > > Templatehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... > > > > On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > > > all we get is minor patches. > > > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > > > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Not Google but: “Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web framework http://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework On Aug 30, 11:09 pm, Roberto Saccon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Davide, nobody cares about your personal concerns around Google’s > commitment to Django templates. There are plenty of other frameworks > and template languages, choose the one which fits your needs or if > none fits your needs build one yourself (aren't you doing that > already, the JS thingy ??), I am happy that Google has chosen the most > popular one in Python land. > > regards > Roberto > > On Aug 30, 4:34 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No no, this post is for all: "Having doubts about AppEngine" > > > 1) """My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > project""" > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to Django template. > > > 2) """Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks > > go unanswered for months""" > > > Also about the template system. > > > 3) """Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft Redhat or Amazon""" > > > Django is free, no investment. > > > On Aug 30, 9:05 pm, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Davide, > > > > I really don't see the Django template language being a valid concern > > > at all. It is just a library that Google provides, no one is forcing > > > you to use it. > > > > And further, personally I think that if you find Django templates too > > > limiting, you probably don't fully understand it. I switched to Django > > > after coding with Ruby on Rails and PHP, both of which allow you to > > > embed code right in your templates. It was a difficult transition at > > > first, but the restrictions placed by the Django template language > > > make sense, and they encourage good programming practices of the > > > separation between programming logic and presentation code. > > > > And if you're concerned about reusing blocks of code, the concerns > > > about {% with %} are only relevant to Django < 1.0, and the devs have > > > been telling users to use SVN (which is very stable) and not 0.96 for > > > MONTHS now. (Yeah, AE only supports 0.96 out-of-the-box, but that > > > makes sense. Why would Google want to track SVN? I just have my own > > > checkout of Django I use. And besides, Django 1.0 is due for release > > > next week. I guarantee Google will support it.) And besides, I have > > > never had to use {% with %}. Most code repetition I come across is > > > more logically solved with block inheritance. > > > > I strongly recommend you upgrade to the latest Django beta and read > > > the template docs. And if it really doesn't work for you, there are > > > plenty of other options. > > > > This post is really about the problems that Google has with > > > communications about where App Engine is going (and WHEN). > > > > On Aug 30, 4:56 am, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Doubts about Django > > > > Templatehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... > > > > > On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > > > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > > > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > > > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > > > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > > > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > > > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > > > > all we get is minor patches. > > > > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > > > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > > > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > > > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > > > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > > > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > > > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > > > > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
from http://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2007/06/logic-in-templates """How could a custom, sparingly documented, somewhat inconsistent, and mostly unproven (compared to Python) mini expression language be any better for template authors?""" """In my humble opinion, this kind of “dumbed-down” templating results in only one thing: more lines of code in the application modules, lines of code that are really only about presentation, and should be in the templates. And frustration every single time you need to add those lines.""" On Aug 30, 11:09 pm, Roberto Saccon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Davide, nobody cares about your personal concerns around Google’s > commitment to Django templates. There are plenty of other frameworks > and template languages, choose the one which fits your needs or if > none fits your needs build one yourself (aren't you doing that > already, the JS thingy ??), I am happy that Google has chosen the most > popular one in Python land. > > regards > Roberto > > On Aug 30, 4:34 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > No no, this post is for all: "Having doubts about AppEngine" > > > 1) """My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > project""" > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to Django template. > > > 2) """Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks > > go unanswered for months""" > > > Also about the template system. > > > 3) """Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft Redhat or Amazon""" > > > Django is free, no investment. > > > On Aug 30, 9:05 pm, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Davide, > > > > I really don't see the Django template language being a valid concern > > > at all. It is just a library that Google provides, no one is forcing > > > you to use it. > > > > And further, personally I think that if you find Django templates too > > > limiting, you probably don't fully understand it. I switched to Django > > > after coding with Ruby on Rails and PHP, both of which allow you to > > > embed code right in your templates. It was a difficult transition at > > > first, but the restrictions placed by the Django template language > > > make sense, and they encourage good programming practices of the > > > separation between programming logic and presentation code. > > > > And if you're concerned about reusing blocks of code, the concerns > > > about {% with %} are only relevant to Django < 1.0, and the devs have > > > been telling users to use SVN (which is very stable) and not 0.96 for > > > MONTHS now. (Yeah, AE only supports 0.96 out-of-the-box, but that > > > makes sense. Why would Google want to track SVN? I just have my own > > > checkout of Django I use. And besides, Django 1.0 is due for release > > > next week. I guarantee Google will support it.) And besides, I have > > > never had to use {% with %}. Most code repetition I come across is > > > more logically solved with block inheritance. > > > > I strongly recommend you upgrade to the latest Django beta and read > > > the template docs. And if it really doesn't work for you, there are > > > plenty of other options. > > > > This post is really about the problems that Google has with > > > communications about where App Engine is going (and WHEN). > > > > On Aug 30, 4:56 am, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Doubts about Django > > > > Templatehttp://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/... > > > > > On Aug 28, 12:09 am, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > > > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > > > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > > > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > > > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > > > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > > > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > > > > all we get is minor patches. > > > > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > > > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > > > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > > > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > > > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > > > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > > > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > > > > half the team to firefight problems on another pro
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Not Google but: > > "Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web framework > http://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework Note that that was written in 2006. Since then the frameworks and template engines have remained pretty much in their same relative positions. An exception is Mako, which I think was first released around that time and has now become one of the frontrunners for non-XML-style templates. Jinja also appeared, which I think has a Django template-like syntax. In order for Django and TurboGears to merge, one of them would have to give up its founding philosophy. -- Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
Not to start a flame war, but... On Aug 30, 2:34 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 2) """Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks > go unanswered for months""" > > Also about the template system. You realize that Django templates is bundled with AE, and is actually a part of the Django project? The Django project has a HUGE developer community. Try #django on irc.freenode.net or the django users mailing list. As long as the question sticks to Django-related issues that aren't affected by AE (such as the templates), I guarantee they would be happier to help, and much more responsible than this mailing list. > 3) """Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft Redhat or Amazon""" > > Django is free, no investment. Well, let's see... 1. Yes, Django is free (open-source). 2. No, there *is* an investment in terms of time (and thus money) 3. I think you mean App Engine, not Django... Again, Django != App Engine --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:08 PM, Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Davide Rognoni > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> Not Google but: >> >> "Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web framework >> http://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework > > Note that that was written in 2006. Since then the frameworks and > template engines have remained pretty much in their same relative > positions. An exception is Mako, which I think was first released > around that time and has now become one of the frontrunners for > non-XML-style templates. Jinja also appeared, which I think has a > Django template-like syntax. > > In order for Django and TurboGears to merge, one of them would have to > give up its founding philosophy. Additionally, the appengine is a whole new ballgame, so perhaps some ambitious person, young or old, will read this tutorial: http://pythonpaste.org/webob/do-it-yourself.html And write their own appengine specific web framework that becomes the defacto standard for appengine. Who knows, maybe writing webframeworks will become like the Olympics, and every four years a new champion has a chance to win the Gold medal. Of course it would be nice if whoever did this did so in a way in which existing libraries and work from other frameworks could be reused and or integrated > > -- > Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > -- Noah Gift http://noahgift.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
OK, Django Template System is not GAE but a part of GAE, then? On Aug 31, 12:18 am, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not to start a flame war, but... > > On Aug 30, 2:34 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 2) """Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks > > go unanswered for months""" > > > Also about the template system. > > You realize that Django templates is bundled with AE, and is actually > a part of the Django project? The Django project has a HUGE developer > community. Try #django on irc.freenode.net or the django users mailing > list. As long as the question sticks to Django-related issues that > aren't affected by AE (such as the templates), I guarantee they would > be happier to help, and much more responsible than this mailing list. > > > 3) """Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft Redhat or Amazon""" > > > Django is free, no investment. > > Well, let's see... > > 1. Yes, Django is free (open-source). > 2. No, there *is* an investment in terms of time (and thus money) > 3. I think you mean App Engine, not Django... > > Again, Django != App Engine --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Aug 30, 4:25 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Not Google but: > > “Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web > frameworkhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework So what? Guido likes Django... http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2006/aug/07/guidointerview/ FYI if you listened to Guido's talk on building Django apps on AE at Google I/O this year, he said that "Django is just one of many frameworks you can use." The talk is available online. On Aug 30, 4:40 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > fromhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2007/06/logic-in-templates > > """How could a custom, sparingly documented, somewhat inconsistent, > and mostly unproven (compared to Python) mini expression language be > any better for template authors?""" I wasn't using Django over a year ago when that was published (just think: that was when oldforms was still in, eeek), but I will say one thing: out of all of the frameworks and libraries I have used, Django is THE best documented web framework I have ever come across. Also, that quote is comparing how proven an entire language is to a mere collection of template tags and constructs... > """In my humble opinion, this kind of “dumbed-down” templating results > in only one thing: more lines of code in the application modules, > lines of code that are really only about presentation, and should be > in the templates. And frustration every single time you need to add > those lines.""" So Django templates aren't for everyone. Django was designed to be loosely coupled so you can stick in your own preferences where desired. On Aug 30, 4:05 pm, "Noah Gift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I think for new comers to Python, it IS presented as the only choice > as many people would have difficulty "monkey-patching" another > template engine, as there have been issues in getting, to my knowledge > at least, Mako and Genshi to fully work on appengine. It seems like > this new cookbook area would be a good spot to for developers of those > other templates to put their integration recipes: If I wanted to work with PHP and didn't like the fact that it allowed my designers to access PHP, I could certainly choose to use a template language. But of course, it is going to involve overcoming a barrier to implementation. Django templates works great for most people. For those who it doesn't work for, they should be prepared to have to do some extra work. Besides, for beginner's needs, what exactly is it that Django templates doesn't work for? Django templates is incredibly newbie-friendly. As mentioned, the documentation is (IMO) second-to-none, and there are other great resources, like the free talks available online covering Django, and djangobook, which is mostly up-to-date. But still, I don't think this conversation is the appropriate place for this discussion. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
OK, I will go on the big Django Community http://www.djangoproject.com/community/ Bye bye :-D On Aug 31, 12:36 am, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Aug 30, 4:25 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Not Google but: > > > “Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web > > frameworkhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework > > So what? Guido likes > Django...http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2006/aug/07/guidointerview/ > > FYI if you listened to Guido's talk on building Django apps on AE at > Google I/O this year, he said that "Django is just one of many > frameworks you can use." The talk is available online. > > On Aug 30, 4:40 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > fromhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2007/06/logic-in-templates > > > """How could a custom, sparingly documented, somewhat inconsistent, > > and mostly unproven (compared to Python) mini expression language be > > any better for template authors?""" > > I wasn't using Django over a year ago when that was published (just > think: that was when oldforms was still in, eeek), but I will say one > thing: out of all of the frameworks and libraries I have used, Django > is THE best documented web framework I have ever come across. Also, > that quote is comparing how proven an entire language is to a mere > collection of template tags and constructs... > > > """In my humble opinion, this kind of “dumbed-down” templating results > > in only one thing: more lines of code in the application modules, > > lines of code that are really only about presentation, and should be > > in the templates. And frustration every single time you need to add > > those lines.""" > > So Django templates aren't for everyone. Django was designed to be > loosely coupled so you can stick in your own preferences where > desired. > > On Aug 30, 4:05 pm, "Noah Gift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I think for new comers to Python, it IS presented as the only choice > > as many people would have difficulty "monkey-patching" another > > template engine, as there have been issues in getting, to my knowledge > > at least, Mako and Genshi to fully work on appengine. It seems like > > this new cookbook area would be a good spot to for developers of those > > other templates to put their integration recipes: > > If I wanted to work with PHP and didn't like the fact that it allowed > my designers to access PHP, I could certainly choose to use a template > language. But of course, it is going to involve overcoming a barrier > to implementation. Django templates works great for most people. For > those who it doesn't work for, they should be prepared to have to do > some extra work. Besides, for beginner's needs, what exactly is it > that Django templates doesn't work for? > > Django templates is incredibly newbie-friendly. As mentioned, the > documentation is (IMO) second-to-none, and there are other great > resources, like the free talks available online covering Django, and > djangobook, which is mostly up-to-date. > > But still, I don't think this conversation is the appropriate place > for this discussion. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Aug 30, 4:25 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Not Google but: >> >> "Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web >> frameworkhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework > > So what? Guido likes Django... > http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2006/aug/07/guidointerview/ > > FYI if you listened to Guido's talk on building Django apps on AE at > Google I/O this year, he said that "Django is just one of many > frameworks you can use." The talk is available online. I was at Google I/O and attended that talk. Yes, I think that is a great goal for the Google App Engine team, but it is currently not a reality. I hope this can be addressed soon, as personally I feel it is one of the biggest issues facing the project. There are many incredible tools from other frameworks and applications like say, MoinMoin, that could benefit from a more complete version of Python. At the very least the documentation should be updated to state that it is the goal to support other frameworks than webapp. > > On Aug 30, 4:40 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> fromhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2007/06/logic-in-templates >> >> """How could a custom, sparingly documented, somewhat inconsistent, >> and mostly unproven (compared to Python) mini expression language be >> any better for template authors?""" > > I wasn't using Django over a year ago when that was published (just > think: that was when oldforms was still in, eeek), but I will say one > thing: out of all of the frameworks and libraries I have used, Django > is THE best documented web framework I have ever come across. Also, > that quote is comparing how proven an entire language is to a mere > collection of template tags and constructs... Let me preface that I use Django for many projects and I like it for certain things. Please don't take offense anyone at my view about flaws in Django: This is an excellent argument actually. Why reinvent Python and keep making special cases like threaded comments each time a new flaw in the template design is found? This actually violates the "Zen of Python", http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/. Of course we can take this discussion offline. This is a very valid point against Django templates. Reinventing constructs > >> """In my humble opinion, this kind of "dumbed-down" templating results >> in only one thing: more lines of code in the application modules, >> lines of code that are really only about presentation, and should be >> in the templates. And frustration every single time you need to add >> those lines.""" > > So Django templates aren't for everyone. Django was designed to be > loosely coupled so you can stick in your own preferences where > desired. This phrase, "Django was designed to be loosely coupled", is another complaint I have against Django, and something I frequently hear. What does this mean? In my opinion Pylons is loosely coupled: http://pylonsbook.com/. Django does not do things that I feel are loosely coupled, like documenting in a published book or official documentation how to use third party components such as SQLAlchemy, Jinja, or setuptools. Almost every alternate popular framework supports directly, with copious official documentation, setuptools: http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools, and SQLAlchemy: http://www.sqlalchemy.org/. Here are a list of alternate frameworks in Python that people might reference: Zope 3: http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope3 Grok: http://grok.zope.org/ Pylons: http://pylonshq.com/ Turbogears2: http://turbogears.org/2.0/ Werkzeug: http://werkzeug.pocoo.org/documentation/tutorial/ All of these support in their documentation setuptools and SQLAlchemy and are in my opinion loosely coupled. Loosely coupled means different things to different people and it is marketing terminology that Django should probably drop, as it is false. > > On Aug 30, 4:05 pm, "Noah Gift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I think for new comers to Python, it IS presented as the only choice >> as many people would have difficulty "monkey-patching" another >> template engine, as there have been issues in getting, to my knowledge >> at least, Mako and Genshi to fully work on appengine. It seems like >> this new cookbook area would be a good spot to for developers of those >> other templates to put their integration recipes: > > If I wanted to work with PHP and didn't like the fact that it allowed > my designers to access PHP, I could certainly choose to use a template > language. But of course, it is going to involve overcoming a barrier > to implementation. Django templates works great for most people. For > those who it doesn't work for, they should be prepared to have to do > some extra work. Besides, for beginner's needs, what exactly is it > that Django templates doesn't work for? Again please reference this URL for many examp
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
I contact you now, here, online :-) For my PyOoHtml next release, I will put this http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/ because it right and it has been placed in the public domain (like my PyOoHtml). And I will put a link to this post because it explains the aim of my new project. On Aug 31, 2:08 am, "Noah Gift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 6:36 PM, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Aug 30, 4:25 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Not Google but: > > >> "Guido just pronounced: Django is the [Python] web > >> frameworkhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2006/08/the-python-web-framework > > > So what? Guido likes > > Django...http://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2006/aug/07/guidointerview/ > > > FYI if you listened to Guido's talk on building Django apps on AE at > > Google I/O this year, he said that "Django is just one of many > > frameworks you can use." The talk is available online. > > I was at Google I/O and attended that talk. Yes, I think that is a > great goal for the Google App Engine team, but it is currently not a > reality. I hope this can be addressed soon, as personally I feel it > is one of the biggest issues facing the project. There are many > incredible tools from other frameworks and applications like say, > MoinMoin, that could benefit from a more complete version of Python. > At the very least the documentation should be updated to state that it > is the goal to support other frameworks than webapp. > > > > > On Aug 30, 4:40 pm, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> fromhttp://www.cmlenz.net/archives/2007/06/logic-in-templates > > >> """How could a custom, sparingly documented, somewhat inconsistent, > >> and mostly unproven (compared to Python) mini expression language be > >> any better for template authors?""" > > > I wasn't using Django over a year ago when that was published (just > > think: that was when oldforms was still in, eeek), but I will say one > > thing: out of all of the frameworks and libraries I have used, Django > > is THE best documented web framework I have ever come across. Also, > > that quote is comparing how proven an entire language is to a mere > > collection of template tags and constructs... > > Let me preface that I use Django for many projects and I like it for > certain things. Please don't take offense anyone at my view about > flaws in Django: > > This is an excellent argument actually. Why reinvent Python and keep > making special cases like threaded comments each time a new flaw in > the template design is found? This actually violates the "Zen of > Python",http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0020/. Of course we can > take this discussion offline. > > This is a very valid point against Django templates. Reinventing constructs > > > > >> """In my humble opinion, this kind of "dumbed-down" templating results > >> in only one thing: more lines of code in the application modules, > >> lines of code that are really only about presentation, and should be > >> in the templates. And frustration every single time you need to add > >> those lines.""" > > > So Django templates aren't for everyone. Django was designed to be > > loosely coupled so you can stick in your own preferences where > > desired. > > This phrase, "Django was designed to be loosely coupled", is another > complaint I have against Django, and something I frequently hear. > What does this mean? In my opinion Pylons is loosely > coupled:http://pylonsbook.com/. Django does not do things that I feel are > loosely coupled, like documenting in a published book or official > documentation how to use third party components such as SQLAlchemy, > Jinja, or setuptools. Almost every alternate popular framework > supports directly, with copious official documentation, > setuptools:http://peak.telecommunity.com/DevCenter/setuptools, and > SQLAlchemy:http://www.sqlalchemy.org/. Here are a list of alternate > frameworks > in Python that people might reference: > > Zope 3: http://www.zope.org/Products/Zope3 > Grok: http://grok.zope.org/ > Pylons: http://pylonshq.com/ > Turbogears2: http://turbogears.org/2.0/ > Werkzeug: http://werkzeug.pocoo.org/documentation/tutorial/ > > All of these support in their documentation setuptools and SQLAlchemy > and are in my opinion loosely coupled. Loosely coupled means > different things to different people and it is marketing terminology > that Django should probably drop, as it is false. > > > > > > > On Aug 30, 4:05 pm, "Noah Gift" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> I think for new comers to Python, it IS presented as the only choice > >> as many people would have difficulty "monkey-patching" another > >> template engine, as there have been issues in getting, to my knowledge > >> at least, Mako and Genshi to fully work on appengine. It seems like > >> this new cookbook area would be a good spot to for developers of those > >> other templates to put their integration recipes: > > >
[google-appengine] Re: Having doubts about AppEngine
I'd like to have _all_ issues (http://code.google.com/p/ googleappengine/issues/list) with a "real" status (accepted, refused, duplicated,...) Currently, most are in "Defect" status even real major bug. There are about 700 issues. They have to be updated. This is part of the roadmap. On 28 août, 02:58, Dado <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I also agree completely!!! Lack of roadmap and GAE team feedback is a > very serious issue!!! > > On Aug 27, 3:09 pm, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > > My concerns center around Google’s commitment to the App Engine > > project. Compared to Amazon’s Web Service forums this place feels like > > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > > all we get is minor patches. > > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > > What’s happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > > half the team to firefight problems on another project? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
I'm a little bit confused about the discussion php vs django template at all. The most of the posters here should take a look at the no. 1 php template engine: Smarty http://www.smarty.net/ Take the documentation of the template syntax, you will see that Smarty and Django Template are very similar, so similar that I wrote my first (not so simple) django template without even look at the docs of django. I'm not sure which system comes first [but I heared that it was smarty one time], django templates or smarty, but who ever was second knows the other one while planning its own solution. So a lot of php and python developers have a nearly identical handling of templates in there projects. On Aug 31, 12:36 am, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If I wanted to work with PHP and didn't like the fact that it allowed > my designers to access PHP, I could certainly choose to use a template > language. But of course, it is going to involve overcoming a barrier > to implementation. Django templates works great for most people. For > those who it doesn't work for, they should be prepared to have to do > some extra work. Besides, for beginner's needs, what exactly is it > that Django templates doesn't work for? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
The point wasn't to compare Smarty and Django Templates, it was just to show that if you do something different from the "default", no matter what language and platform you are developing for, there is always going to be extra work involved. And for the record, Smarty has been around several years longer than Django. On Sep 1, 3:23 am, LH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm a little bit confused about the discussion php vs django template > at all. > > The most of the posters here should take a look at the no. 1 php > template engine: Smartyhttp://www.smarty.net/ > > Take the documentation of the template syntax, you will see that > Smarty and Django Template are very similar, so similar that I wrote > my first (not so simple) django template without even look at the docs > of django. > > I'm not sure which system comes first [but I heared that it was smarty > one time], django templates or smarty, but who ever was second knows > the other one while planning its own solution. > So a lot of php and python developers have a nearly identical handling > of templates in there projects. > > On Aug 31, 12:36 am, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > If I wanted to work with PHP and didn't like the fact that it allowed > > my designers to access PHP, I could certainly choose to use a template > > language. But of course, it is going to involve overcoming a barrier > > to implementation. Django templates works great for most people. For > > those who it doesn't work for, they should be prepared to have to do > > some extra work. Besides, for beginner's needs, what exactly is it > > that Django templates doesn't work for? --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 12:56 PM, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The point wasn't to compare Smarty and Django Templates, it was just > to show that if you do something different from the "default", no > matter what language and platform you are developing for, there is > always going to be extra work involved. Unfortunately, for Google, they chose a default Template, Django, that is fairly controversial to many people, and then they incorrectly documented that other web frameworks, such as Pylons work, yet didn't test this statement. Unfortunately, as a result, this has the potential to become a flash point of criticism. Forget getting other language support, how about just getting most of Python to work! If I was a member of the marketing staff, I would have pursued a strategy that ensured that defaults for appengine didn't lock you into an ultra orthodox view of web development like Django Templates take. By ultra orthodox I mean handcuffing the templates so you cannot insert Python code in them. Instead I would at the least have included two templates, or actually done my homework and tested that another web framework really worked before claiming it did. This is unfortunate, as now there is already some dissent among established Python programmers: http://spyced.blogspot.com/2008/08/app-engine-conclusions.html I am optimistic Google will eventually address this and work to support the incorrect language they currently have in their documentation: http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/gettingstarted/usingwebapp.html > > And for the record, Smarty has been around several years longer than > Django. > > > On Sep 1, 3:23 am, LH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I'm a little bit confused about the discussion php vs django template >> at all. >> >> The most of the posters here should take a look at the no. 1 php >> template engine: Smartyhttp://www.smarty.net/ >> >> Take the documentation of the template syntax, you will see that >> Smarty and Django Template are very similar, so similar that I wrote >> my first (not so simple) django template without even look at the docs >> of django. >> >> I'm not sure which system comes first [but I heared that it was smarty >> one time], django templates or smarty, but who ever was second knows >> the other one while planning its own solution. >> So a lot of php and python developers have a nearly identical handling >> of templates in there projects. >> >> On Aug 31, 12:36 am, Michael Schreifels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > If I wanted to work with PHP and didn't like the fact that it allowed >> > my designers to access PHP, I could certainly choose to use a template >> > language. But of course, it is going to involve overcoming a barrier >> > to implementation. Django templates works great for most people. For >> > those who it doesn't work for, they should be prepared to have to do >> > some extra work. Besides, for beginner's needs, what exactly is it >> > that Django templates doesn't work for? > > > -- Noah Gift http://noahgift.com --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
> If I was a member of the marketing staff, I would have pursued a > strategy that ensured that defaults for appengine didn't lock you into > an ultra orthodox view of web development like Django Templates take. > By ultra orthodox I mean handcuffing the templates so you cannot > insert Python code in them. While I agree that claims shouldn't be made for not fully working frameworks, I'd rather the core AppEngine team implement features the rest of the community would have great difficulty implementing. I don't consider templates a difficult piece of the pie. I'm a relative python newbie and if I had a little more time and motivation, I'd create a version of Haml (template system out of Ruby world that uses pythonic indentation for clarity) that allows embedded python. As far as I can tell, there's nothing preventing any of us from creating such a framework because evals aren't sandboxed. I haven't created that template system (yet) because I find Django's templates sufficient. Yes, I run into the python embedding issue sometimes, but there are ways to work around it and Django does provide a nice number of filters and a tailorable template system. There's a difference between things the community can build on the existing framework and things Google probably has to do themselves, like https support, cross-app datastore access, and relaxing the sandbox or securing important packages like full PIL support. Stuff we can't do as a community should take priority. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
> While I agree that claims shouldn't be made for not fully working > frameworks, I'd rather the core AppEngine team implement features the > rest of the community would have great difficulty implementing. I > don't consider templates a difficult piece of the pie. I'm a relative > python newbie and if I had a little more time and motivation, I'd > create a version of Haml (template system out of Ruby world that uses > pythonic indentation for clarity) that allows embedded python. Hmm, the docs look interesting. I would give it a try if you ported it to Python. It looks pretty cool, plus it is used as the default by Merb, which seems to be stealing a bit of the Rails thunder I hear. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
> > ... if I had a little more time and motivation, I'd > > create a version of Haml (template system out of Ruby world that uses > > pythonic indentation for clarity) that allows embedded python. > > Hmm, the docs look interesting. I would give it a try if you ported > it to Python. It looks pretty cool, plus it is used as the default by > Merb, which seems to be stealing a bit of the Rails thunder I hear. Didn't realize it was the Merb default. There's already a python port (http://lucumr.pocoo.org/cogitations/2008/05/31/the-new-ghrml-haml-for- genshi/) you can try out on App Engine. It requires Genshi. If Django bothers me enough, I might try it out. Still, it feels like it's a port and not fully exploiting the natural fit with the python language. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 4:09 PM, javaDinosaur <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > I am starting to have doubts about continuing to develop my > applications for GAE. My concerns are not technical although I have a > some anxieties about transaction data propagation performance. > > My concerns center around Google's commitment to the App Engine > project. Compared to Amazon's Web Service forums this place feels like > a technical backwater. Developers hosting on Amazon AWS post > interesting questions and get deep-dive replies promptly from Amazon > staff. Amazon is releasing new Cloud development services monthly yet > all we get is minor patches. > > Here on the GAE forum elementary questions about how GAE ticks go > unanswered for months. Basic roadmap type info such as will we get SSL > or scheduled tasks is missing. > > I just feel that the GAE Team is not building up any development > stream in what should be the last 4 month run up to the year-end > release. Communication with the developer community here is abysmal > compared to the investment in developer relations made by companies > such as Microsoft, Redhat or Amazon. > > What's happened to the early buzz Google? Has the top bass pinched > half the team to firefight problems on another project? > I have to agree with the original poster, I assumed that by now we should have had the paid service and the much waited ssl. We need a real commitment from gae team so things here can jump from hobby to business, and by business I don't mean we are going to move all our companies infrastructure to GAE, but that small projects that have a good future could think of it as what it proposed in the first place http://sites.google.com/site/io/building-scalable-web-applications-with-google-app-engine --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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: Having doubts about AppEngine
On Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Davide Rognoni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > Doubts about Django Template > > http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine/browse_thread/thread/3503204aed78e934# > > About this discussion which seems to have stolen the thread (bad) Django templates are one of the ways of doing templates, some of us don't like them because of the restrictions they impose, others have build their own. All in all the limitations imposed to other templating engines by the GAE infrastructure have some people look away from it. Therefore (and for the record) keep in mind we DO understand django-templates, we just think they have a (couple) of bad design decisions on them, which is why we prefer other templating engines which aren't supported yet. --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---