Re: App Engine port

No comments on the more efficient perms/contenttypes implementation? I'd really like to know if that is an option because if it's not I should better make app-engine-patch 1.0 compatible with the less efficient implementation. Hmm, or I could emulate those db tables in the backend, but that

Re: App Engine port

On 14 Feb., 03:08, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 02:14 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > > On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick > > wrote: > > > > Is the plan somewhere on the wiki? > > > > No, because it's only something

Re: App Engine port

Seems like my message didn't reach the server. Sending again. Sorry if you receive this twice. On 14 Feb., 03:08, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 02:14 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > > On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick

Re: App Engine port

Basic demand side problem. When an app stands up and solves the real issues (which, as the DjangoCon presentation proved, there were many) involving App Engine and Django, then I (and the demographic of developers I statistically represent) will become excited. -S On Feb 6, 9:51 am, David

Re: App Engine port

On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 02:14 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick > wrote: > > > Is the plan somewhere on the wiki? > > > > No, because it's only something I'm pulling together slowly in my head. > > I hope you've read my wiki page,

Re: App Engine port

On 12 Feb., 03:51, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > > Is the plan somewhere on the wiki? > > No, because it's only something I'm pulling together slowly in my head. I hope you've read my wiki page, so that in the end Django is flexible enough to work even with App Engine's

Re: App Engine port

On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 09:08 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Hi Malcolm, > > On 10 Feb., 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick > wrote: > > I have a reasonably fleshed out plan to make things easier here in the > > Django 1.2 timeframe. The rough idea is that everything under >

Re: App Engine port

Hi Malcolm, On 10 Feb., 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick wrote: > I have a reasonably fleshed out plan to make things easier here in the > Django 1.2 timeframe. The rough idea is that everything under > django/db/models/sql/ could be replaced with a module of the developer's

Re: App Engine port

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 12:36 PM, David Larlet wrote: > > > Le 10 févr. 09 à 17:53, Alex Gaynor a écrit : > > David, I think I mentioned this to you, but I believe that by using > > the new F() objects we can actually remove the raw SQL entirely, I'd > > need to put some more

Re: App Engine port

Le 10 févr. 09 à 17:53, Alex Gaynor a écrit : > David, I think I mentioned this to you, but I believe that by using > the new F() objects we can actually remove the raw SQL entirely, I'd > need to put some more thought into this(and perhaps Malcolm already > has) but it should be possible.

Re: App Engine port

On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 10:36 AM, David Larlet wrote: > > > Le 10 févr. 09 à 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit : > > There's also > > simple enough stuff like removing the last vestiges of raw SQL from a > > couple of places (most notable related fields, but that should > >

Re: App Engine port

Le 10 févr. 09 à 05:25, Malcolm Tredinnick a écrit : > There's also > simple enough stuff like removing the last vestiges of raw SQL from a > couple of places (most notable related fields, but that should > probably > go after, or in tandem with, a rewrite of related fields to clean them > up

Re: App Engine port

Malcolm, Russell, James, Thanks for taking the time to respond so thoroughly to my questions. I think that these questions are rooted in the unrealistic idea that something that looks like it would be good relationship- or PR-wise is also a good development priority. As I expressed, I've

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 03:32 -0800, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > Hi Russell, > > On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > > I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the > > django.db.models interface to be fully independent of SQL" is much > >

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:51 -0500, David Stenglein wrote: > I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding > App Engine? It would > seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A > lot of people don't know Django and at a previous job, I was able to >

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 11:51 PM, David Stenglein wrote: > > I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding > App Engine? It would > seem to me that App Engine has been a feather in the cap for Django. A > lot of people don't know Django and at a

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:51 AM, David Stenglein wrote: > I have to ask a question here. Why is there such reticence regarding > App Engine? I'm curious as to what reticence you think there is; since, as Russell said, code to get a straight Django with all features

Re: App Engine port

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

Re: App Engine port

On 6 Feb., 13:10, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > Ok - sounds like they could be some good contributions. I just wanted > to make sure you were not planning on making the Django wiki the home > of the "how to use app-engine-patch" documentation. Hmm, now that you mention

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 8:32 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > > Hi Russell, > > On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: >> I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the >> django.db.models interface to be fully independent of

Re: App Engine port

Hi Russell, On 6 Feb., 11:34, Russell Keith-Magee wrote: > I would suggest to you that the broader project of "modifying the > django.db.models interface to be fully independent of SQL" is much > more likely to get core developer support. We (the Django core) will > be

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > > BTW, could someone please activate my "wkornewald" Trac account, so I > can move the documentation into your wiki? After I pressed send, something else occurred to me: Before you starting loading documentation

Re: App Engine port

On Fri, Feb 6, 2009 at 5:51 PM, Waldemar Kornewald wrote: > > A native Django port could provide us with a clean, more powerful, and > more actively developed API for App Engine development. Moreover, it > could provide a solution for provider lock-in by abstracting the >

App Engine port

Hi everyone, first of all, let me introduce myself. I'm the main developer behind app-engine-patch which is a port of Django to App Engine: http://code.google.com/p/app-engine-patch/ Our repository version of Django now even supports the admin interface and almost all of Django's other features,