Thanks Jonathan for your reply, My intention is to bring these issues out, I'm a big Google, Django, Python fan and I would love to see GAE work for a larger subset of problems. Current functionality is just very limited.
> > 4. No sorting: When using lists, inequalities etc you can't sort on > > multiple properties. You just can't. > > You can construct a synthetic property that represents the desired > ordering lexicographically. This costs you some storage, but so would > an index. You can't do that with a two or more property sort. The combiniations are infinite and despite the popular belief, the an object's instance size is limited. If you attempt to save a large object, it will cause a datastore timeout while populating the rows of it's index. > > 5. Limited Datastore functionality > > In my opinion, you're making the logical error of judging the Google > data store vs. the properties of SQL. They are not comparable. I know the difference between the two and I'm not making a logical error. I'm talking about basic functionality like deleting an object which has 200 other objects refer to it. You need a way of updating all those referring objects that the data is now deleted. If you don't do that, you will need to always check whether that object exists which itself incurs considerable costs while retrieving data. > > 7. In 2008, GAE keeps on making you reinvent the wheel: As a > > On the other hand, it's *so easy* to implement those features! I completely, respectfully disagree. Try implementing an OR. Or try implementing simple word-based search (the SearchableModel doesn't stack with GQL). Try getting data that is between two dates and with in a range. As a programmer, I like small problems I can work with, it's even fun. But these problems have no work around except doing it "in-memory" or in a "purely-pythonic" implementation. Doing so will create a solution which will ofcourse time-out and will not scale. On Oct 5, 5:45 pm, Jonathan Feinberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Oct 4, 6:20 pm, Nash <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > My strong suggestion at this stage to anyone considering GAE for a > > production, business use DO NOT USE GAE. > > Unless, of course, you can't find anything else with the same scaling > properties, ease of use, and pleasure of development. Then do. > > > 4. No sorting: When using lists, inequalities etc you can't sort on > > multiple properties. You just can't. > > You can construct a synthetic property that represents the desired > ordering lexicographically. This costs you some storage, but so would > an index. > > > 5. Limited Datastore functionality > > In my opinion, you're making the logical error of judging the Google > data store vs. the properties of SQL. They are not comparable. > > > 7. In 2008, GAE keeps on making you reinvent the wheel: As a > > webapplication/startup, the most important thing is feature velocity. > > How fast can you deliver features? With GAE, some very common > > functionality has to be reinvented over and over. To the point where > > it consumes so much time that the cost-time benefits are completely > > lost. > > On the other hand, it's *so easy* to implement those features! > > > 8. No HTTPS. Toy apps aside (apologies to wordle and buddypoke), if > > google wants serious applications it NEEDS to add HTTPS support. In > > this day and age of trust building, colored address-bar to peace of > > mind; you cannot leave this feature out. > > There's a huge middle ground between "toy" and "e-commerce". What's > wrong with addressing that middle ground? > > > 9. Dev Server is broken. > > WFM > > > 12. Very slow GAE upgrades: The GAE team is very slow on introducing > > changes to appengine. > > Again, WFM. > > > 13. No roadmap shared: We'd all shutup on the features if Google said > > "we're working on it, it'll be out"; Google won't even say it's > > working on it or that there is work being done > > While there is room for improvement, I think it's safe to say that a > bug status of "accepted" means "working on it now" and that > "acknowledged" means "we intend to get to it." > > > My software shop had a team of 6 GAE developers, but until GAE can get > > it's act together, we're pulling away from it. The time and money > > wasted on getting simple things to work is atrocious and the light at > > the end of the tunnel is just way too far away. > > This story goes a long way in explaining your evident anger, and I'm > sorry for your lost time. I also share your frustration in not knowing > enough about what's going to happen and when. But I do think that > there are an enormous number of businesses that could do well to use > App Engine. There are a number of dimensions on which to measure the > suitability of App Engine for a particular task. For example, "storage- > intensive" really suggests the use of S3; "CPU-intensive" (like video > rendering or whatever) suggests the use of EC2. "Security above all" > suggests your own hardware in your own NOC. But there are many "real" > businesses that might be a good match for AE. I don't know Dave > Westwood, and can't speak for him, but I don't think there's anything > about GAE that's stopping him from monetizing BuddyPoke. (On the other > hand, I prefer to keep the Wordle web site non-commercial, while > licensing the core technology in other ways.) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Google App Engine" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
