Odd. I get different results than you do.
Quite different actually.
.* in the sandbox is slower (by a lot)
.* on f4 is faster
Also, I think you are very wrong about dynamically/lazily loading classes.
Since my version warms up in 2.5s on an F2. (though I have an initialization
missing somewhere
Brandon. This pit is just getting deeper and deeper. When are you
going to give up?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Drake wrote:
> Really?
>
> You don't think that doing lazy class loads would speed up your startup?
The JVM lazy loads classes automatically. This is just how it works.
> Did
I blew up or created some circular reference because it's late and I had a
lousy week... I'm not familiar enough with the code, but you have several
objects whose creation should be moved to the top of your code. And a few
places you should swap to mutable returns.
The mutable returns won't speed
Also None of your references are weak? Do you just hate garbage collectors?
That won't help much with startup, but again it would reduce your need to
startup as often.
You do a lot of String + String.. use stringbuffer instead
You do a lot of .Trim when you should use Vector
And yes in a few sp
Really?
You don't think that doing lazy class loads would speed up your startup?
Did you try?
Did you benchmark Dotted Imports vs full import, or "less dotted"? I
knocked 1s of the startup just by * importing objectify, that you took all
of but did so in 6 places.
No, you never try anything.
Brandon, you have absolutely no idea how the JVM works.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Drake wrote:
>
> And not having time to sort through the duplicate imports which are
> definitely killing load time...
>
> And ignoring the fact that you are doing Dotted imports which add up to most
> if not
I recently made a change to do more in memcache. Before I was seeing a
hit ratio in the low 90's. Now I'm seeing it in the low 70's. I enabled
billing to try F2 instances thinking that having more memory (256 Mb) would
improve things. The hit ratio is in the low 80's. I'm not sure what to
PS, sorry I was driving home between when you through down the gauntlet, and
10 minutes before I posted this. And I had to pee, which slowed me down.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To post to this group, send email to go
Skipping the start time issue since there doesn’t appear to be a single lazy
load in the whole project….
And not having time to sort through the duplicate imports which are
definitely killing load time...
And ignoring the fact that you are doing Dotted imports which add up to most
if not th
On Monday, July 23, 2012 6:37:15 PM UTC-7, Brandon Wirtz wrote:
>
> CDN isn't my primary. I mostly do other things. You seem stuck on my CDN.
> I
> don't even promote the damn thing it helps with my old SEO clients. Our
> analytics and Ad management platforms are full on business apps. We do
>
Thanks, Takashi. Erasing the file solved the problem.
Any idea why this happens? I am quite sure I entered the (correct)
credentials again just now. :-/
BTW, can you
close http://code.google.com/p/googleappengine/issues/detail?id=7888 ?
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:55:17 PM UTC-3, Takashi Matsu
Hi Brandon,
I use both Objectify and low-level access. Objectify for most "fixed-field"
entities, and low-level for small entities (for session, as i override
GAE's Java session) and entities where it can have 30+ fields but only 5+
filled in average (but need to store them in 1 entity since pe
Please make sure that you're using the correct app-id and google account
for the deploy.
Maybe you can erase the file ~/.appcfg_cookies (or rename), and retry
deploying the app.
-- Takashi
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To
CDN isn't my primary. I mostly do other things. You seem stuck on my CDN. I
don't even promote the damn thing it helps with my old SEO clients. Our
analytics and Ad management platforms are full on business apps. We do real
database stuff. We did 1million write ops in an hour the other day. ( I can
Something interesting: the deploy continues to fail from the Ubuntu
machine, which resolves appengine.google.com to 74.125.229.161. The
Mac is resolving it to 74.125.229.233. Can someone please check the
box on the 161 address?
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 3:01 PM, Ricardo Bánffy wrote:
> Oddly enough
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Drake wrote:
> But you keep slamming my CDN because you like those
> other "CDN guys" but it is just an enabling technology for everything else I
> do.
I really am not slamming your product; for all I know it's amazingly
wonderful. What I object to is that you ar
August 25th I have an app launch. It is no small thing. My CDN is a Toy in
the view you have of it. But the internal version is designed to make all
the other stuff work. It is a load balanacing url handling, code
modularizing tool. But you keep slamming my CDN because you like those
other "CDN g
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 10:32 AM, Per wrote:
>
> I doubt that Google will commit to any official statement. So here's my 2
> cents, from a low-usage, rather complex B2B application. "Frameworks are
> okay, to a certain degree, but be prepared to rework if you're successful"
While I certainly woul
I can't believe I'm keeping this thread going, but...
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 10:15 AM, Drake wrote:
> And your
>> absurd proposal that all 326 of my url endpoints should be separate
>> applications... Just. Wow.
>
> If you had actually read what I posted I said that you should group by task
What are you trying to store?
On Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:20:03 PM UTC+1, sagar123 wrote:
>
> Some please help me to get rid of this error ?
>
> Property picture must be a str or unicode instance, not a dict: Traceback
> (most recent call last):
> : Property
> picture must be a str or unicode ins
That's an interesting comment. I had the impression that with Java you
would have only a small surface that's actually exposed to App Engine
and porting would be very, very simple (with the occasional required
profiling because it is a very distributed system). With Python, it's
very hard to avoid
+1 to this reply.
Frameworks are OK, sometimes. The real question that you have to ask
yourself is, what are you using from the framework, and does it justify
copying the entire framework library in. Sometimes you absolutely need the
framework, but you only need a portion of it. Fine, tear out
On GAE it's not just the startup.. Well it is, but for more reasons. You
have less memory too. So someone's really optimized framework might be
AMAZING for CPU optimizations, but the cost of adding it from a memory
standpoint causes you to hit the soft limit instance death more often. Which
causes
On Monday, July 23, 2012 10:38:12 AM UTC-5, Paul v wrote:
>
> Well I love the who's-a-better-guru argument. I've learned a ton reading
> this thread, I hope they keep going at it.
Just out of sheer curiosity, what exactly have you learned from reading
this read? Really, the entire discussion b
Hello Kate,
I believe you have enabled billing. $2.10/week or about $9/month is
a minimum charge.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 6:02 PM, kate wrote:
> I'm searching for a very similar issue - I've been charge $2.10/week for
> no activity, and there is nothing on my billing that includes the
>
2.10$ a week is the 9$ monthly charge for having billing enabled.
On Jul 23, 2012, at 12:02 PM, kate wrote:
> I'm searching for a very similar issue - I've been charge $2.10/week for no
> activity, and there is nothing on my billing that includes the $2.10/week
> minimum - is this something tha
Hi All,
MY 11 gmail accounts which use in google app engine have been disable So
i cannot manage google appengine .
Moreover I enabled billing for each google app for these account .
It was still be charged credit card because google system banned
application & account but not disabl
I'm searching for a very similar issue - I've been charge $2.10/week for no
activity, and there is nothing on my billing that includes the $2.10/week
minimum - is this something that applies to all app engine accounts? I
can't find documentation of it anywhere in the information I've received.
Oddly enough, I fired up a Mac (Lion, Macports python 2.7, 1.7.0 SDK),
git pulled the project and appcfg.py update deployed the app
flawlessly. The problem persisted on the Ubuntu (vanilla 12.04, distro
python 2.7, 1.7.0 SDK) box until at least about 10 AM, the last time I
tried. Both computers are
I doubt that Google will commit to any official statement. So here's my 2
cents, from a low-usage, rather complex B2B application. "Frameworks are
okay, to a certain degree, but be prepared to rework if you're successful"
We're using one heavy framework (Apache Wicket) and plenty of the regul
It's not a who's a better guru. I'm sure Jeff writes better Java than I do.
But "This aint your grandmother's java". I participate in a HipHop (php)
discussion group too, and people will say "Well XY and Z aren't possible
with out ZEND" well, no they are just hard without it.
If you are runnin
Well I love the who's-a-better-guru argument. I've learned a ton reading
this thread, I hope they keep going at it.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App Engine" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/
Personally, I don't care much for the who's-a-better-guru argument, doesn't
get us any closer to a solution.
App Engine proves Joel Spolsky's "all abstractions are leaky" statement. An
abstraction is nice when it works but you'd better know what's going on
under the hood when it doesn't. Most o
If the processing is considered "offline" and not latency sensitive, then
you can put that work onto a task queue and take up to 10 minutes. No need
for a backend.
As for SciPy, Brandon is exactly right. SciPy is written entirely in
Fortran whereas the other third-party libraries we have (NumPy
You might want to configure warmup requests if you haven't already.
T
On Friday, July 20, 2012 9:18:15 PM UTC+8, Chris Vaughn wrote:
>
>
> Thanks for the reply Kyle. I don't know for sure if it was while a new
> instance was being added. I'll keep an eye on that if I see it again.
--
You rec
Hi Takashi,
yes this works. We use this url on an application that is already used bei
thousands of users on iOS. So I want to make sure that it works also with
the old url. Any Suggestions?
Thank you!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Google App E
Hi can you please provide link to the original code (site) so i can take a look.
Cheers
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Michael Adeyeye wrote:
> Hi,
> I am trying to extend a two-user video chat (the one you wrote) to a
> three-user.
> My plan is to create two instances of the webkitPeertoPeerC
Have has some issues come in from users of my app hosted on appspot.com
reporting email delivery failure with the following message:
Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the recipient
domain. We recommend contacting the other email provider for further
information about
GAE for Python 1.7.0
I am trying to pass chinese characters to the URL so that handlers
recognize them through regular expressions.
the regular expression is
CH_RE = u'[⺀-⺙⺛-⻳⼀-⿕々〇〡-〩〸-〺〻㐀-䶵一-鿃豈-鶴侮-頻並-龎]'
Hopefully the regular expression catches as follows
app = webapp2.WSGIApplication([('
Hi,
I am trying to extend a two-user video chat (the one you wrote) to a
three-user.
My plan is to create two instances of the webkitPeertoPeerConnection so
that each device would connect to the other two.
Could you please help me with this code -http://pastebin.mozilla.org/1711859?
Everytime
40 matches
Mail list logo
