And, by that comment I don't mean to imply that we're not interested in HTTPS :-P, but instead that we're not interested in opening up direct protocol buffer access to our APIs.
On Oct 14, 9:17 pm, Jon McAlister <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > We are indeed an application hosting infrastructure first and > foremost, as Peter correctly claims. And yes, we do have protocols > underlying all of our APIs. They are built on protocol > buffers:http://code.google.com/p/protobuf/. We presently serve only HTTP, > though, and are not interested in serving on any other protocols. > > Does this answer your question, Jason? > > On Oct 11, 10:51 pm, jsnx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I'm curious about the App Engine team's decision to be make > > App Engine an API and not a protocol. There must be protocols > > underyling all this stuff -- though they may be pretty rough > > -- and protocol level access would have facilitated use of > > Ruby, PHP, Haskell, Bourne Shell and Perl as well as Python. > > > It is true that protocol level access would have perhaps > > undermined that app hosting feature of Google App Engine, or > > would have complicated it beyond reason. --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
