Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine]

For those of you interested in webapp2, I've posted an update here 
.

On Friday, March 4, 2016 at 3:49:09 PM UTC-8, Alex Martelli wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Karl MacMillan  > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Mar 4, 2016, at 1:57 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
>> google-a...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>> Just a quick update on the webapp2 situation. The original author has 
>> graciously allowed us to take ownership. My team is working on getting 
>> everything moved to github and making sure that we can properly test and 
>> release new versions. I'll make an announcement on this group when the 
>> github repository is ready. At that point, we'll be able review and accept 
>> pull requests from the community to maintain webapp2.
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the update - looking forward to some updates.
>>
>> One of the missing pieces for some of the problems that I encountered is 
>> a modern, native (i.e., fast) implementation of modern password hashing 
>> (e.g., PBKDF2, SCrypt, or BCrypt). Am I just missing a python module for 
>> this that is available for App Engine?
>>
>
> You should be able to use the pure-python, open-source 
> https://github.com/dlitz/python-pbkdf2/blob/master/pbkdf2.py -- App 
> Engine does supply the underlying pycrypto which this pure-python module 
> imports (you must request it in the libraries: stanza of your app.yaml -- 
> or yaml for your GAE module if you need PBKDF2 for use in such a module).
>
> As always, to use pure-python modules in your GAE app, you just need to 
> add them to your source tree.
>
>
> Alex
>  
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-8, troberti wrote:
>>>
>>> This is encouraging to hear and hope it happens. I like webapp2 just 
>>> fine as it is: simple, stable, easy to test, *just works*. The fact that it 
>>> doesn't 'evolve' is imho a good thing. Bug fixes are of course always 
>>> welcome.
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:21:29 AM UTC+1, Alex Martelli wrote:

 Just a personal input/data point -- writing not as a Googler but as a 
 "Python guru":-)

 Currently writing the 3rd edition of Python in a Nutshell (in my 
 copious personal time), I've recently finished the "serving HTTP" chapter 
 (the book is already available in Early Release form at the O'Reilly 
 website, check it out:-). For the purpose, I thoroughly tested lightweight 
 frameworks (rich frameworks such as django, web2py, and the like, though I 
 mentioned them, aren't really "my thang"). Specifically: falcon, flask, 
 bottle, and webapp2.

 Of the four, webapp2 remains my favorite (admittedly I started out 
 knowing it much better than the others, which may have biased me). Next in 
 order of preference, falcon, bottle, flask -- all good, but the most 
 popular, flask, is accruing so much extras that it barely qualifies as 
 "lightweight" any more.

 If webapp2 becomes easy to offer patches for again, I'll spend personal 
 time (once the Nutshell is finished -- give me a few more months!-) 
 helping 
 there -- indeed I'll volunteer to vet pull requests if gurus to vet them 
 are needed -- to help keep out the kinds of deep integration with 
 unrelated 
 components (such as the admittedly superb templating framework jinjia2) 
 which are fattening up flask:-(.

 I sure hope (very personal preference) that webapp2 isn't put out to 
 pasture... should it be, I might either fork it, or give up and move to 
 falcon for new projects (and maybe volunteer to help out on THAT 
 framework).

 Again, just personal preferences -- but, ones based on almost 20 years' 
 experience with Python (starting with a personal website project using 
 CGI) 
 and on being a Fellow of the PSF and a winner of the Frank Willison 
 Memorial Award for contributions to Python:-).


 Alex


 On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Karl MacMillan  
 wrote:

>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
> google-a...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance 
> only mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more 
> popular frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>
> In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we 
> update our docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of 
> discussion - but I'm personally for it.
>
>
> If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest 
> you include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for 
> webapp2. Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression 
> that it was well supported by 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Alex Martelli' via Google App Engine]

On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Karl MacMillan 
wrote:

>
> On Mar 4, 2016, at 1:57 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
> google-appengine@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Just a quick update on the webapp2 situation. The original author has
> graciously allowed us to take ownership. My team is working on getting
> everything moved to github and making sure that we can properly test and
> release new versions. I'll make an announcement on this group when the
> github repository is ready. At that point, we'll be able review and accept
> pull requests from the community to maintain webapp2.
>
>
> Thanks for the update - looking forward to some updates.
>
> One of the missing pieces for some of the problems that I encountered is a
> modern, native (i.e., fast) implementation of modern password hashing
> (e.g., PBKDF2, SCrypt, or BCrypt). Am I just missing a python module for
> this that is available for App Engine?
>

You should be able to use the pure-python, open-source
https://github.com/dlitz/python-pbkdf2/blob/master/pbkdf2.py -- App Engine
does supply the underlying pycrypto which this pure-python module imports
(you must request it in the libraries: stanza of your app.yaml -- or yaml
for your GAE module if you need PBKDF2 for use in such a module).

As always, to use pure-python modules in your GAE app, you just need to add
them to your source tree.


Alex


>
> Thanks,
>
> Karl
>
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-8, troberti wrote:
>>
>> This is encouraging to hear and hope it happens. I like webapp2 just fine
>> as it is: simple, stable, easy to test, *just works*. The fact that it
>> doesn't 'evolve' is imho a good thing. Bug fixes are of course always
>> welcome.
>>
>> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:21:29 AM UTC+1, Alex Martelli wrote:
>>>
>>> Just a personal input/data point -- writing not as a Googler but as a
>>> "Python guru":-)
>>>
>>> Currently writing the 3rd edition of Python in a Nutshell (in my copious
>>> personal time), I've recently finished the "serving HTTP" chapter (the book
>>> is already available in Early Release form at the O'Reilly website, check
>>> it out:-). For the purpose, I thoroughly tested lightweight frameworks
>>> (rich frameworks such as django, web2py, and the like, though I mentioned
>>> them, aren't really "my thang"). Specifically: falcon, flask, bottle, and
>>> webapp2.
>>>
>>> Of the four, webapp2 remains my favorite (admittedly I started out
>>> knowing it much better than the others, which may have biased me). Next in
>>> order of preference, falcon, bottle, flask -- all good, but the most
>>> popular, flask, is accruing so much extras that it barely qualifies as
>>> "lightweight" any more.
>>>
>>> If webapp2 becomes easy to offer patches for again, I'll spend personal
>>> time (once the Nutshell is finished -- give me a few more months!-) helping
>>> there -- indeed I'll volunteer to vet pull requests if gurus to vet them
>>> are needed -- to help keep out the kinds of deep integration with unrelated
>>> components (such as the admittedly superb templating framework jinjia2)
>>> which are fattening up flask:-(.
>>>
>>> I sure hope (very personal preference) that webapp2 isn't put out to
>>> pasture... should it be, I might either fork it, or give up and move to
>>> falcon for new projects (and maybe volunteer to help out on THAT framework).
>>>
>>> Again, just personal preferences -- but, ones based on almost 20 years'
>>> experience with Python (starting with a personal website project using CGI)
>>> and on being a Fellow of the PSF and a winner of the Frank Willison
>>> Memorial Award for contributions to Python:-).
>>>
>>>
>>> Alex
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Karl MacMillan 
>>> wrote:
>>>

 On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
 google-a...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance
 only mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more
 popular frameworks and plenty of downsides.

 In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we
 update our docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of
 discussion - but I'm personally for it.


 If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest
 you include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for
 webapp2. Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression
 that it was well supported by Google. That’s the _only_ thing that
 irritates me about this whole situation. I believe the docs lead me down a
 path without warning me of the true consequences. Even a basic “webapp2 is
 community supported framework” description would make it clearer.

 No matter what we do there, there should be some way for people who are
 currently using webapp2 currently to provide 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

[Karl MacMillan]

> On Mar 4, 2016, at 1:57 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>  wrote:
> 
> Just a quick update on the webapp2 situation. The original author has 
> graciously allowed us to take ownership. My team is working on getting 
> everything moved to github and making sure that we can properly test and 
> release new versions. I'll make an announcement on this group when the github 
> repository is ready. At that point, we'll be able review and accept pull 
> requests from the community to maintain webapp2.
> 

Thanks for the update - looking forward to some updates.

One of the missing pieces for some of the problems that I encountered is a 
modern, native (i.e., fast) implementation of modern password hashing (e.g., 
PBKDF2, SCrypt, or BCrypt). Am I just missing a python module for this that is 
available for App Engine?

Thanks,

Karl

> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-8, troberti wrote:
> This is encouraging to hear and hope it happens. I like webapp2 just fine as 
> it is: simple, stable, easy to test, *just works*. The fact that it doesn't 
> 'evolve' is imho a good thing. Bug fixes are of course always welcome.
> 
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:21:29 AM UTC+1, Alex Martelli wrote:
> Just a personal input/data point -- writing not as a Googler but as a "Python 
> guru":-)
> 
> Currently writing the 3rd edition of Python in a Nutshell (in my copious 
> personal time), I've recently finished the "serving HTTP" chapter (the book 
> is already available in Early Release form at the O'Reilly website, check it 
> out:-). For the purpose, I thoroughly tested lightweight frameworks (rich 
> frameworks such as django, web2py, and the like, though I mentioned them, 
> aren't really "my thang"). Specifically: falcon, flask, bottle, and webapp2.
> 
> Of the four, webapp2 remains my favorite (admittedly I started out knowing it 
> much better than the others, which may have biased me). Next in order of 
> preference, falcon, bottle, flask -- all good, but the most popular, flask, 
> is accruing so much extras that it barely qualifies as "lightweight" any more.
> 
> If webapp2 becomes easy to offer patches for again, I'll spend personal time 
> (once the Nutshell is finished -- give me a few more months!-) helping there 
> -- indeed I'll volunteer to vet pull requests if gurus to vet them are needed 
> -- to help keep out the kinds of deep integration with unrelated components 
> (such as the admittedly superb templating framework jinjia2) which are 
> fattening up flask:-(.
> 
> I sure hope (very personal preference) that webapp2 isn't put out to 
> pasture... should it be, I might either fork it, or give up and move to 
> falcon for new projects (and maybe volunteer to help out on THAT framework).
> 
> Again, just personal preferences -- but, ones based on almost 20 years' 
> experience with Python (starting with a personal website project using CGI) 
> and on being a Fellow of the PSF and a winner of the Frank Willison Memorial 
> Award for contributions to Python:-).
> 
> 
> Alex
> 
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Karl MacMillan > 
> wrote:
> 
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only 
>> > mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular 
>> > frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>> 
>> In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we update our 
>> docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of discussion - but 
>> I'm personally for it.
> 
> If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest you 
> include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for webapp2. 
> Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression that it was 
> well supported by Google. That’s the _only_ thing that irritates me about 
> this whole situation. I believe the docs lead me down a path without warning 
> me of the true consequences. Even a basic “webapp2 is community supported 
> framework” description would make it clearer.
> 
>> No matter what we do there, there should be some way for people who are 
>> currently using webapp2 currently to provide patches.
>> 
> 
> I’d certainly appreciate that. Despite my complaints, I’m not itching to port 
> all of my code off of webapp2 because it’s working fine.
> 
> Karl
> 
>> Putting webapp2 in maintenance only mode is not currently our decision as we 
>> do not own the package (it's a third-party package). If we do gain ownership 
>> of it, we will likely put it into a community-supported model.
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM Karl MacMillan > 
>> wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>>> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine]

Just a quick update on the webapp2 situation. The original author has 
graciously allowed us to take ownership. My team is working on getting 
everything moved to github and making sure that we can properly test and 
release new versions. I'll make an announcement on this group when the 
github repository is ready. At that point, we'll be able review and accept 
pull requests from the community to maintain webapp2.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 3:51:56 AM UTC-8, troberti wrote:
>
> This is encouraging to hear and hope it happens. I like webapp2 just fine 
> as it is: simple, stable, easy to test, *just works*. The fact that it 
> doesn't 'evolve' is imho a good thing. Bug fixes are of course always 
> welcome.
>
> On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:21:29 AM UTC+1, Alex Martelli wrote:
>>
>> Just a personal input/data point -- writing not as a Googler but as a 
>> "Python guru":-)
>>
>> Currently writing the 3rd edition of Python in a Nutshell (in my copious 
>> personal time), I've recently finished the "serving HTTP" chapter (the book 
>> is already available in Early Release form at the O'Reilly website, check 
>> it out:-). For the purpose, I thoroughly tested lightweight frameworks 
>> (rich frameworks such as django, web2py, and the like, though I mentioned 
>> them, aren't really "my thang"). Specifically: falcon, flask, bottle, and 
>> webapp2.
>>
>> Of the four, webapp2 remains my favorite (admittedly I started out 
>> knowing it much better than the others, which may have biased me). Next in 
>> order of preference, falcon, bottle, flask -- all good, but the most 
>> popular, flask, is accruing so much extras that it barely qualifies as 
>> "lightweight" any more.
>>
>> If webapp2 becomes easy to offer patches for again, I'll spend personal 
>> time (once the Nutshell is finished -- give me a few more months!-) helping 
>> there -- indeed I'll volunteer to vet pull requests if gurus to vet them 
>> are needed -- to help keep out the kinds of deep integration with unrelated 
>> components (such as the admittedly superb templating framework jinjia2) 
>> which are fattening up flask:-(.
>>
>> I sure hope (very personal preference) that webapp2 isn't put out to 
>> pasture... should it be, I might either fork it, or give up and move to 
>> falcon for new projects (and maybe volunteer to help out on THAT framework).
>>
>> Again, just personal preferences -- but, ones based on almost 20 years' 
>> experience with Python (starting with a personal website project using CGI) 
>> and on being a Fellow of the PSF and a winner of the Frank Willison 
>> Memorial Award for contributions to Python:-).
>>
>>
>> Alex
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Karl MacMillan  
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
>>> google-a...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance 
>>> only mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more 
>>> popular frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>>>
>>> In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we update 
>>> our docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of discussion 
>>> - but I'm personally for it.
>>>
>>>
>>> If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest 
>>> you include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for 
>>> webapp2. Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression 
>>> that it was well supported by Google. That’s the _only_ thing that 
>>> irritates me about this whole situation. I believe the docs lead me down a 
>>> path without warning me of the true consequences. Even a basic “webapp2 is 
>>> community supported framework” description would make it clearer.
>>>
>>> No matter what we do there, there should be some way for people who are 
>>> currently using webapp2 currently to provide patches.
>>>
>>>
>>> I’d certainly appreciate that. Despite my complaints, I’m not itching to 
>>> port all of my code off of webapp2 because it’s working fine.
>>>
>>> Karl
>>>
>>> Putting webapp2 in maintenance only mode is not currently our decision 
>>> as we do not own the package (it's a third-party package). If we do gain 
>>> ownership of it, we will likely put it into a community-supported model.
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM Karl MacMillan  
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
 google-a...@googlegroups.com> wrote:

 > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I 
 could suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than 
 Datastore on that page.

 It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the 
 way to access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see 
 if I can't make the docs a bit more clear there.


 Hmm - maybe I was 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

[troberti]

This is encouraging to hear and hope it happens. I like webapp2 just fine 
as it is: simple, stable, easy to test, *just works*. The fact that it 
doesn't 'evolve' is imho a good thing. Bug fixes are of course always 
welcome.

On Tuesday, February 23, 2016 at 5:21:29 AM UTC+1, Alex Martelli wrote:
>
> Just a personal input/data point -- writing not as a Googler but as a 
> "Python guru":-)
>
> Currently writing the 3rd edition of Python in a Nutshell (in my copious 
> personal time), I've recently finished the "serving HTTP" chapter (the book 
> is already available in Early Release form at the O'Reilly website, check 
> it out:-). For the purpose, I thoroughly tested lightweight frameworks 
> (rich frameworks such as django, web2py, and the like, though I mentioned 
> them, aren't really "my thang"). Specifically: falcon, flask, bottle, and 
> webapp2.
>
> Of the four, webapp2 remains my favorite (admittedly I started out knowing 
> it much better than the others, which may have biased me). Next in order of 
> preference, falcon, bottle, flask -- all good, but the most popular, flask, 
> is accruing so much extras that it barely qualifies as "lightweight" any 
> more.
>
> If webapp2 becomes easy to offer patches for again, I'll spend personal 
> time (once the Nutshell is finished -- give me a few more months!-) helping 
> there -- indeed I'll volunteer to vet pull requests if gurus to vet them 
> are needed -- to help keep out the kinds of deep integration with unrelated 
> components (such as the admittedly superb templating framework jinjia2) 
> which are fattening up flask:-(.
>
> I sure hope (very personal preference) that webapp2 isn't put out to 
> pasture... should it be, I might either fork it, or give up and move to 
> falcon for new projects (and maybe volunteer to help out on THAT framework).
>
> Again, just personal preferences -- but, ones based on almost 20 years' 
> experience with Python (starting with a personal website project using CGI) 
> and on being a Fellow of the PSF and a winner of the Frank Willison 
> Memorial Award for contributions to Python:-).
>
>
> Alex
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Karl MacMillan  > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
>> google-a...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>
>> > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only 
>> mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular 
>> frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>>
>> In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we update 
>> our docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of discussion 
>> - but I'm personally for it.
>>
>>
>> If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest you 
>> include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for 
>> webapp2. Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression 
>> that it was well supported by Google. That’s the _only_ thing that 
>> irritates me about this whole situation. I believe the docs lead me down a 
>> path without warning me of the true consequences. Even a basic “webapp2 is 
>> community supported framework” description would make it clearer.
>>
>> No matter what we do there, there should be some way for people who are 
>> currently using webapp2 currently to provide patches.
>>
>>
>> I’d certainly appreciate that. Despite my complaints, I’m not itching to 
>> port all of my code off of webapp2 because it’s working fine.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>> Putting webapp2 in maintenance only mode is not currently our decision as 
>> we do not own the package (it's a third-party package). If we do gain 
>> ownership of it, we will likely put it into a community-supported model.
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM Karl MacMillan > > wrote:
>>
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
>>> google-a...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>>>
>>> > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could 
>>> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore 
>>> on that page.
>>>
>>> It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the way 
>>> to access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see if I 
>>> can't make the docs a bit more clear there.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hmm - maybe I was wanting ndb in a non-compat python runtime. It’s been 
>>> a while.
>>>
>>> > So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the 
>>> issue I pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
>>>
>>> You make some excellent points. I will move webapp2 to github, take 
>>> ownership of it, and I'll be happy to review and merge your patch as well 
>>> as publish a new version of webapp2 to PyPI. This process takes some time, 
>>> so I will update this list once that is done.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hah - fair enough. I’ll send you that patch when you’re ready.
>>>
>>> BUT - if you ask me, you really 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Alex Martelli' via Google App Engine]

Just a personal input/data point -- writing not as a Googler but as a
"Python guru":-)

Currently writing the 3rd edition of Python in a Nutshell (in my copious
personal time), I've recently finished the "serving HTTP" chapter (the book
is already available in Early Release form at the O'Reilly website, check
it out:-). For the purpose, I thoroughly tested lightweight frameworks
(rich frameworks such as django, web2py, and the like, though I mentioned
them, aren't really "my thang"). Specifically: falcon, flask, bottle, and
webapp2.

Of the four, webapp2 remains my favorite (admittedly I started out knowing
it much better than the others, which may have biased me). Next in order of
preference, falcon, bottle, flask -- all good, but the most popular, flask,
is accruing so much extras that it barely qualifies as "lightweight" any
more.

If webapp2 becomes easy to offer patches for again, I'll spend personal
time (once the Nutshell is finished -- give me a few more months!-) helping
there -- indeed I'll volunteer to vet pull requests if gurus to vet them
are needed -- to help keep out the kinds of deep integration with unrelated
components (such as the admittedly superb templating framework jinjia2)
which are fattening up flask:-(.

I sure hope (very personal preference) that webapp2 isn't put out to
pasture... should it be, I might either fork it, or give up and move to
falcon for new projects (and maybe volunteer to help out on THAT framework).

Again, just personal preferences -- but, ones based on almost 20 years'
experience with Python (starting with a personal website project using CGI)
and on being a Fellow of the PSF and a winner of the Frank Willison
Memorial Award for contributions to Python:-).


Alex


On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 2:34 PM, Karl MacMillan 
wrote:

>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
> google-appengine@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only
> mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular
> frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>
> In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we update
> our docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of discussion
> - but I'm personally for it.
>
>
> If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest you
> include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for
> webapp2. Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression
> that it was well supported by Google. That’s the _only_ thing that
> irritates me about this whole situation. I believe the docs lead me down a
> path without warning me of the true consequences. Even a basic “webapp2 is
> community supported framework” description would make it clearer.
>
> No matter what we do there, there should be some way for people who are
> currently using webapp2 currently to provide patches.
>
>
> I’d certainly appreciate that. Despite my complaints, I’m not itching to
> port all of my code off of webapp2 because it’s working fine.
>
> Karl
>
> Putting webapp2 in maintenance only mode is not currently our decision as
> we do not own the package (it's a third-party package). If we do gain
> ownership of it, we will likely put it into a community-supported model.
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM Karl MacMillan 
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
>> google-appengine@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could
>> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore
>> on that page.
>>
>> It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the way
>> to access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see if I
>> can't make the docs a bit more clear there.
>>
>>
>> Hmm - maybe I was wanting ndb in a non-compat python runtime. It’s been a
>> while.
>>
>> > So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue
>> I pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
>>
>> You make some excellent points. I will move webapp2 to github, take
>> ownership of it, and I'll be happy to review and merge your patch as well
>> as publish a new version of webapp2 to PyPI. This process takes some time,
>> so I will update this list once that is done.
>>
>>
>> Hah - fair enough. I’ll send you that patch when you’re ready.
>>
>> BUT - if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance
>> only mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more
>> popular frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>>
>> One note - last I looked much of the session handling code was completely
>> broken (
>> https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/api/webapp2_extras/sessions.html). I
>> ended up just rolling my own after my initial bug report was ignored.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM Karl MacMillan 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

[Karl MacMillan]

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:40 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>  wrote:
> 
> > if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only 
> > mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular 
> > frameworks and plenty of downsides.
> 
> In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we update our 
> docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of discussion - but 
> I'm personally for it.

If you don’t make the change (or maybe until), can I strongly suggest you 
include some discussion that makes it clear the level of support for webapp2. 
Like I said - I went with that option on the mistaken impression that it was 
well supported by Google. That’s the _only_ thing that irritates me about this 
whole situation. I believe the docs lead me down a path without warning me of 
the true consequences. Even a basic “webapp2 is community supported framework” 
description would make it clearer.

> No matter what we do there, there should be some way for people who are 
> currently using webapp2 currently to provide patches.
> 

I’d certainly appreciate that. Despite my complaints, I’m not itching to port 
all of my code off of webapp2 because it’s working fine.

Karl

> Putting webapp2 in maintenance only mode is not currently our decision as we 
> do not own the package (it's a third-party package). If we do gain ownership 
> of it, we will likely put it into a community-supported model.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM Karl MacMillan  > wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could 
>> > suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than 
>> > Datastore on that page.
>> 
>> It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the way to 
>> access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see if I 
>> can't make the docs a bit more clear there.
>> 
> 
> Hmm - maybe I was wanting ndb in a non-compat python runtime. It’s been a 
> while.
> 
>> > So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I 
>> > pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
>> 
>> You make some excellent points. I will move webapp2 to github, take 
>> ownership of it, and I'll be happy to review and merge your patch as well as 
>> publish a new version of webapp2 to PyPI. This process takes some time, so I 
>> will update this list once that is done.
>> 
> 
> Hah - fair enough. I’ll send you that patch when you’re ready.
> 
> BUT - if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only 
> mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular 
> frameworks and plenty of downsides.
> 
> One note - last I looked much of the session handling code was completely 
> broken (https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/api/webapp2_extras/sessions.html 
> ). I 
> ended up just rolling my own after my initial bug report was ignored.
> 
> Karl
> 
> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM Karl MacMillan > > wrote:
>>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:44 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
>>> 
>>> There is on-going discussion about NDB for Cloud Datastore here 
>>> .
>>>  The tl;dr is that basically it's possible, it's planned, but its 
>>> contingent on the next release of the Cloud Datastore API and decoupling 
>>> NDB from the App Engine SDK.
>>> 
>> 
>> Great.
>> 
>>> That being said, you can absolutely continue use NDB in Managed VMs by 
>>> using runtime: python-compat 
>>> .
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could 
>> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore 
>> on that page.
>> 
>>> Is webapp2 going to be deprecated
>>> 
>>> There are no present plans that I'm aware of to deprecate webapp2. Because 
>>> webapp2 is a WSGI-compliant web framework and is not itself tied to App 
>>> Engine, you can use it in Standard, Managed VMs, and pretty much anywhere 
>>> else. It'll continue to work everywhere WSGI works.
>> 
>> Sure - I currently use it on GCE as well just to not use two frameworks. But 
>> it is abandoned as far as I can tell - there are bugs that have not been 
>> addressed in years.
>> 
>>> It's also an open-source project and patches are always welcome.
>>> 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine]

> if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only
mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular
frameworks and plenty of downsides.

In general we want to align with the Python community. Whether we update
our docs to point to Flask over webapp2 is currently a point of discussion
- but I'm personally for it. No matter what we do there, there should be
some way for people who are currently using webapp2 currently to provide
patches.

Putting webapp2 in maintenance only mode is not currently our decision as
we do not own the package (it's a third-party package). If we do gain
ownership of it, we will likely put it into a community-supported model.

On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:32 PM Karl MacMillan  wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
> google-appengine@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could
> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore
> on that page.
>
> It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the way
> to access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see if I
> can't make the docs a bit more clear there.
>
>
> Hmm - maybe I was wanting ndb in a non-compat python runtime. It’s been a
> while.
>
> > So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue
> I pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
>
> You make some excellent points. I will move webapp2 to github, take
> ownership of it, and I'll be happy to review and merge your patch as well
> as publish a new version of webapp2 to PyPI. This process takes some time,
> so I will update this list once that is done.
>
>
> Hah - fair enough. I’ll send you that patch when you’re ready.
>
> BUT - if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance
> only mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more
> popular frameworks and plenty of downsides.
>
> One note - last I looked much of the session handling code was completely
> broken (
> https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/api/webapp2_extras/sessions.html). I
> ended up just rolling my own after my initial bug report was ignored.
>
> Karl
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM Karl MacMillan 
> wrote:
>
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:44 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
>> google-appengine@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
>>>
>>
>> There is on-going discussion about NDB for Cloud Datastore here
>> .
>> The tl;dr is that basically it's possible, it's planned, but its contingent
>> on the next release of the Cloud Datastore API and decoupling NDB from the
>> App Engine SDK.
>>
>>
>> Great.
>>
>> That being said, you can absolutely continue use NDB in Managed VMs by
>> using runtime: python-compat
>> 
>> .
>>
>>
>> Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could
>> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore
>> on that page.
>>
>> Is webapp2 going to be deprecated
>>>
>>
>> There are no present plans that I'm aware of to deprecate webapp2.
>> Because webapp2 is a WSGI-compliant web framework and is not itself tied to
>> App Engine, you can use it in Standard, Managed VMs, and pretty much
>> anywhere else. It'll continue to work everywhere WSGI works.
>>
>>
>> Sure - I currently use it on GCE as well just to not use two frameworks.
>> But it is abandoned as far as I can tell - there are bugs that have not
>> been addressed in years.
>>
>> It's also an open-source project and patches are always welcome.
>>
>>
>> I’m sorry, but that’s a little disingenuous. As far as I can tell there
>> is _no_ activity on webapp2. I submitted a bug report that pointed to an
>> exact line of code that needed to be changed but there was no response (
>> https://code.google.com/archive/p/webapp-improved/issues/102). It’s not
>> clear that there is any process to submit patches (contributing on the
>> website has no information -
>> https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/#contribute), there is no active
>> mailing list / discussion forum, the bug tracker is just an archive on
>> google code, and I can see no evidence that there is anyone other than a
>> Google employee that can commit.
>>
>> So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I
>> pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
>>
>> Otherwise, please consider declaring that the project is abandoned and
>> stop pointing people to webapp2 in App Engine documentation since it’s a
>> dead end.
>>
>> Karl
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

[Karl MacMillan]

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 4:14 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could 
> > suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore 
> > on that page.
> 
> It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the way to 
> access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see if I can't 
> make the docs a bit more clear there.
> 

Hmm - maybe I was wanting ndb in a non-compat python runtime. It’s been a while.

> > So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I 
> > pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
> 
> You make some excellent points. I will move webapp2 to github, take ownership 
> of it, and I'll be happy to review and merge your patch as well as publish a 
> new version of webapp2 to PyPI. This process takes some time, so I will 
> update this list once that is done.
> 

Hah - fair enough. I’ll send you that patch when you’re ready.

BUT - if you ask me, you really should just put webapp2 into maintenance only 
mode and suggest people move on. There are no advantages over more popular 
frameworks and plenty of downsides.

One note - last I looked much of the session handling code was completely 
broken (https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/api/webapp2_extras/sessions.html 
). I 
ended up just rolling my own after my initial bug report was ignored.

Karl

> 
> On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM Karl MacMillan  > wrote:
>> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:44 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>> > > wrote:
>> 
>> Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
>> 
>> There is on-going discussion about NDB for Cloud Datastore here 
>> .
>>  The tl;dr is that basically it's possible, it's planned, but its contingent 
>> on the next release of the Cloud Datastore API and decoupling NDB from the 
>> App Engine SDK.
>> 
> 
> Great.
> 
>> That being said, you can absolutely continue use NDB in Managed VMs by using 
>> runtime: python-compat 
>> .
>>  
>> 
> 
> Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could 
> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore 
> on that page.
> 
>> Is webapp2 going to be deprecated
>> 
>> There are no present plans that I'm aware of to deprecate webapp2. Because 
>> webapp2 is a WSGI-compliant web framework and is not itself tied to App 
>> Engine, you can use it in Standard, Managed VMs, and pretty much anywhere 
>> else. It'll continue to work everywhere WSGI works.
> 
> Sure - I currently use it on GCE as well just to not use two frameworks. But 
> it is abandoned as far as I can tell - there are bugs that have not been 
> addressed in years.
> 
>> It's also an open-source project and patches are always welcome.
>> 
> 
> I’m sorry, but that’s a little disingenuous. As far as I can tell there is 
> _no_ activity on webapp2. I submitted a bug report that pointed to an exact 
> line of code that needed to be changed but there was no response 
> (https://code.google.com/archive/p/webapp-improved/issues/102 
> ). It’s not 
> clear that there is any process to submit patches (contributing on the 
> website has no information - https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/#contribute 
> ), there is no active 
> mailing list / discussion forum, the bug tracker is just an archive on google 
> code, and I can see no evidence that there is anyone other than a Google 
> employee that can commit.
> 
> So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I 
> pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
> 
> Otherwise, please consider declaring that the project is abandoned and stop 
> pointing people to webapp2 in App Engine documentation since it’s a dead end.
> 
> Karl
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google 
> Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/HazEmXZRpiw/unsubscribe 
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to 
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine 

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine]

> Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could
suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore
on that page.

It's not new as far as I know - ndb and db have traditionally be the way to
access datastore in App Engine, so it's somewhat implied. I'll see if I
can't make the docs a bit more clear there.

> So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I
pointed to and I’ll happily do so.

You make some excellent points. I will move webapp2 to github, take
ownership of it, and I'll be happy to review and merge your patch as well
as publish a new version of webapp2 to PyPI. This process takes some time,
so I will update this list once that is done.


On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 1:01 PM Karl MacMillan  wrote:

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:44 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine <
> google-appengine@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
>>
>
> There is on-going discussion about NDB for Cloud Datastore here
> .
> The tl;dr is that basically it's possible, it's planned, but its contingent
> on the next release of the Cloud Datastore API and decoupling NDB from the
> App Engine SDK.
>
>
> Great.
>
> That being said, you can absolutely continue use NDB in Managed VMs by
> using runtime: python-compat
> 
> .
>
>
> Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could
> suggest it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore
> on that page.
>
> Is webapp2 going to be deprecated
>>
>
> There are no present plans that I'm aware of to deprecate webapp2. Because
> webapp2 is a WSGI-compliant web framework and is not itself tied to App
> Engine, you can use it in Standard, Managed VMs, and pretty much anywhere
> else. It'll continue to work everywhere WSGI works.
>
>
> Sure - I currently use it on GCE as well just to not use two frameworks.
> But it is abandoned as far as I can tell - there are bugs that have not
> been addressed in years.
>
> It's also an open-source project and patches are always welcome.
>
>
> I’m sorry, but that’s a little disingenuous. As far as I can tell there is
> _no_ activity on webapp2. I submitted a bug report that pointed to an exact
> line of code that needed to be changed but there was no response (
> https://code.google.com/archive/p/webapp-improved/issues/102). It’s not
> clear that there is any process to submit patches (contributing on the
> website has no information -
> https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/#contribute), there is no active
> mailing list / discussion forum, the bug tracker is just an archive on
> google code, and I can see no evidence that there is anyone other than a
> Google employee that can commit.
>
> So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I
> pointed to and I’ll happily do so.
>
> Otherwise, please consider declaring that the project is abandoned and
> stop pointing people to webapp2 in App Engine documentation since it’s a
> dead end.
>
> Karl
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Google App Engine" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/google-appengine/HazEmXZRpiw/unsubscribe
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/AF77E164-0058-455F-9679-87FDB89C1926%40strajillion.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/CAN6JEymD%2BEv3jnS7KRr6UN4zBwaHVogNuPrA78Wnq2%2B%2BXV%2B6TA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

[Karl MacMillan]

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 3:44 PM, 'Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine 
>  wrote:
> 
> Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
> 
> There is on-going discussion about NDB for Cloud Datastore here 
> .
>  The tl;dr is that basically it's possible, it's planned, but its contingent 
> on the next release of the Cloud Datastore API and decoupling NDB from the 
> App Engine SDK.
> 

Great.

> That being said, you can absolutely continue use NDB in Managed VMs by using 
> runtime: python-compat 
> .
>  
> 

Is that new? Last I looked I believe NDB was not supported. If I could suggest 
it would be helpful to use more specific terminology than Datastore on that 
page.

> Is webapp2 going to be deprecated
> 
> There are no present plans that I'm aware of to deprecate webapp2. Because 
> webapp2 is a WSGI-compliant web framework and is not itself tied to App 
> Engine, you can use it in Standard, Managed VMs, and pretty much anywhere 
> else. It'll continue to work everywhere WSGI works.

Sure - I currently use it on GCE as well just to not use two frameworks. But it 
is abandoned as far as I can tell - there are bugs that have not been addressed 
in years.

> It's also an open-source project and patches are always welcome.
> 

I’m sorry, but that’s a little disingenuous. As far as I can tell there is _no_ 
activity on webapp2. I submitted a bug report that pointed to an exact line of 
code that needed to be changed but there was no response 
(https://code.google.com/archive/p/webapp-improved/issues/102 
). It’s not clear 
that there is any process to submit patches (contributing on the website has no 
information - https://webapp-improved.appspot.com/#contribute 
), there is no active mailing 
list / discussion forum, the bug tracker is just an archive on google code, and 
I can see no evidence that there is anyone other than a Google employee that 
can commit.

So - I’ll call your bluff. Tell me how to submit a patch for the issue I 
pointed to and I’ll happily do so.

Otherwise, please consider declaring that the project is abandoned and stop 
pointing people to webapp2 in App Engine documentation since it’s a dead end.

Karl


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/AF77E164-0058-455F-9679-87FDB89C1926%40strajillion.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

['Jon Parrott' via Google App Engine]

>
> Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
>

There is on-going discussion about NDB for Cloud Datastore here 
.
 
The tl;dr is that basically it's possible, it's planned, but its contingent 
on the next release of the Cloud Datastore API and decoupling NDB from the 
App Engine SDK.

That being said, you can absolutely continue use NDB in Managed VMs by 
using runtime: python-compat 

. 

Is webapp2 going to be deprecated
>

There are no present plans that I'm aware of to deprecate webapp2. Because 
webapp2 is a WSGI-compliant web framework and is not itself tied to App 
Engine, you can use it in Standard, Managed VMs, and pretty much anywhere 
else. It'll continue to work everywhere WSGI works. It's also an 
open-source project and patches are always welcome.

The choice of Flask for our samples in Managed VMs is to more closely match 
the broader Python community. In that same effort, we're also creating 
Django samples.

 only went with it because I thought it would be better supported, but it 
> is far from the best option and not even maintained as far as I can tell. I 
> absolutely think you should push Flask or something similar and just 
> publicly declare that you won’t be maintaining webapp2.
>

We're recommending developers use what they are comfortable and familiar 
with and we're working to make sure that common tools and frameworks work 
on our platform.

On Monday, February 22, 2016 at 11:50:40 AM UTC-8, Karl MacMillan wrote:
>
>
> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:18 PM, 'Amir Rouzrokh' via Google App Engine <
> google-a...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Hi everyone,
>
> I’m one of App Engine’s Product Managers and we’ve just pushed out a new 
> iteration of our App Engine Managed VM docs located at 
>
> https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/managed-vms/
>
>
> 1. Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
> 2. Is webapp2 going to be deprecated?
>
> I ask because both of those seem to not be getting much attention with the 
> Managed VM transition. It’s particularly concerning to me because I used 
> both webapp2 and NDB as those were the defaults presented in the App Engine 
> documentation for python (and still are). But now I see no signs of NDB 
> moving to Managed VMs and you are using Flask in these examples.
>
> FWIW - I don’t have a preference about about NDB vs. the new datastore API 
> in gcloud except that I have lots of NDB code that I don’t really want to 
> port. As for webapp2 - I feel really burned by that choice. I only went 
> with it because I thought it would be better supported, but it is far from 
> the best option and not even maintained as far as I can tell. I absolutely 
> think you should push Flask or something similar and just publicly declare 
> that you won’t be maintaining webapp2.
>
> Karl
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/6aa82639-149b-4915-a19b-f50f08953e7b%40googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: [google-appengine] New App Engine Managed VM Docs

[Karl MacMillan]

> On Feb 22, 2016, at 1:18 PM, 'Amir Rouzrokh' via Google App Engine 
>  wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> I’m one of App Engine’s Product Managers and we’ve just pushed out a new 
> iteration of our App Engine Managed VM docs located at 
> 
> https://cloud.google.com/appengine/docs/managed-vms/ 
> 
> 

1. Are there plans to port over NDB for datastore access on managed VMs?
2. Is webapp2 going to be deprecated?

I ask because both of those seem to not be getting much attention with the 
Managed VM transition. It’s particularly concerning to me because I used both 
webapp2 and NDB as those were the defaults presented in the App Engine 
documentation for python (and still are). But now I see no signs of NDB moving 
to Managed VMs and you are using Flask in these examples.

FWIW - I don’t have a preference about about NDB vs. the new datastore API in 
gcloud except that I have lots of NDB code that I don’t really want to port. As 
for webapp2 - I feel really burned by that choice. I only went with it because 
I thought it would be better supported, but it is far from the best option and 
not even maintained as far as I can tell. I absolutely think you should push 
Flask or something similar and just publicly declare that you won’t be 
maintaining webapp2.

Karl

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Google App Engine" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to google-appengine+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to google-appengine@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/google-appengine/15C0945B-A4B5-4336-8F9E-80B6C9E61BAA%40strajillion.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.