Leo and Google App Engine

2009-01-07 Thread mdb
Has anyone tried or considering running LEO as a Google App Engine site I saw Edward Ream's post in April about how App Engine has interesting and powerful aspects. Edward-- would you consider (or like help) in setting up a demo/test/ trial verion of leo as a pure web app My interest

Re: Leo and Google App Engine

2009-01-07 Thread Terry Brown
On Wed, 7 Jan 2009 19:02:14 +0200 Ville M. Vainio vivai...@gmail.com wrote: On the other hand, it could make sense to enable export / modify / import leo outline (or parts of leo outline) to a web app, or provide minimal tree manipulation. I don't think Leo's codebase will be of any help

Re: Leo and Google App Engine

2009-01-07 Thread Ville M. Vainio
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 6:52 PM, mdb mdbol...@gmail.com wrote: I know that the App Engine implementation of python has restrictions that might bake it hard ot impossible to port leo. Different places I don't think it's technically sensible to port leo. It would just involve tons of javascript

Re: Leo and Google App Engine

2009-01-07 Thread Ville M. Vainio
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:12 PM, Terry Brown terry_n_br...@yahoo.com wrote: Surely a web based app could use leoBridge to have leo handle the nodes? Not google app engine, since it can't keep a persistent state (due to it being in the cloud). You'd have to load the whole .leo doc for every

Re: Leo and Google App Engine

2009-01-07 Thread Edward K. Ream
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 10:52 AM, mdb mdbol...@gmail.com wrote: Edward-- would you consider (or like help) in setting up a demo/test/ trial verion of leo as a pure web app Yes, yes, yes! Many thanks for this offer. I'm a web-app ignoramus, so I don't know whether Ville's objections are

Google App Engine

2008-04-09 Thread Edward K. Ream
Popurls lead me to this yesterday: http://code.google.com/appengine/ This is going to be big. Guido has been active in the project. Anyone interested in web apps should take a look. The main page has links to videos. The getting started guide might be more useful: