On Wed, Mar 12, 2014 at 7:30 PM, Gary Martin <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 11/03/14 19:26, Olemis Lang wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 11, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Olemis Lang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Is there any existing integration between Bloodhound and Google App > >>> Engine, as it would make Google Drive integration easier? > >>> > >>> > >> Considering my description above I do not think GAE will be a target for > >> this . AFAICT it's unlikely to run BH on GAE atm . At least the goal of > the > >> original ticket did not consider running BH on the cloud as a > pre-requisite > >> . > >> > >> > > ... and the reasons for this are > > > > - Trac & Bloodhound make heavy use of local file-system > > - It's unlikely that GAE data store will be supported atm e.g. NoSQL , > > particular joins , ... > > - GAE resource and request management policies > > > > Looking at this project again, one of the questions I think I would like > to have answered if I were a student is whether filesystem abstraction > is easier to consider as an external problem. I mean for unix-like > systems at least we could be hoping to deal with FUSE filesystems > instead of writing anything specially for Bloodhound. See for example > [1] for skydrive, [2] for GAE, [3] for Google Drive, [4] for Dropbox... > Also, [5] might give a means to have WebDAV mounts as well. > > I did not know any of those . You make a good point in your reply . [...] -- Regards, Olemis - @olemislc
