Michael, you are making some noise about silly thing like release dates, but you missed to bring in good arguments why the latest django is so important and what is wrong with the current practice of using zipped custom django.
regards Roberto On Dec 18, 5:38 pm, "Michael Angerman" <[email protected]> wrote: > Agreed, my comments were over the top and > > Marzia I apologize for being overly critical. > > You are helping us (the developer) and the App Engine, > its not your fault that more resources from Google are not being deployed > just incredibly frustrating > > that Django 1.0 was released on Sep 3, 2008, > and here we are December 18, 2008. > > Django 1.0 needs to be rolled out in GAE > and a solution of how to deal with this upgrade > is technically feasible and should be addressed quickly... > > On Thu, Dec 18, 2008 at 12:15 PM, [email protected] < > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I see nothing wrong with Marzia's response. The move from 0.96 to 1.0 > > does in fact break things. Having the change made underneath you > > without time to prepare and make migration changes will break lots of > > peoples applications. > > > Check out appengine patch. I'm using it and Django 1.0 because of it > > with 0 problems. Django runs well from a zip package with it. They are > > doing the responsible thing here, and your accusations about lack of > > professionalism are completely outlandish. > > > On Dec 18, 3:06 pm, "Michael Angerman" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Let me start out by saying that I think the App Engine is > > > an incredible product and has amazing potential. > > > > I think the choice of Python and Django as the initial > > > release of the product were brilliant and really got > > > the job done. > > > > I would like to hear from Google as to where they are REALLY > > > at with this product -- where they are going -- and how serious > > > they are about putting the necessary resources in place to make > > > this product a production reality. > > > > As a person who watches the industry very closely, I don't really > > > see the effort in place that could be there to make this happen, > > > and NOT porting to Django 1.0 by this time is just ONE example > > > of kind of dropping the ball so to speak... > > > > Again, I am on Google's side and want to see this product be > > > incredibly successful -- I am just extremely disappointed with the > > > execution so far... > > > > For months, I have been anxiously awaiting Google to put > > > in the hard work to make the switch to Django 1.0 a reality. > > > > Months ago, I had conversations with Paul McDonald regarding > > > this issue, and still nothing... This is extremely disappointing. > > > > In my mind, it shows Google's lack of serious commitment > > > to the App Engine. Actions really do speak louder than words. > > > > Another interesting note that people at Google should seriously > > > take a look at is the amount of traffic on this mail list. It has > > dropped > > > off dramatically from the glory days and initial months of this product > > > release. > > > > I am really baffled as to why Google didn't keep the momentum going, > > > you had such hype around this product -- and all you had to do was follow > > > through with execution... > > > > The drop off in participation in this mail list is a direct sign > > > and correlation of the momentum slowing down... > > > > Google, take the "bull by the horns" and re-ignite the user community > > > by delivering to us -- YOUR CUSTOMER -- what we want. > > > > Django 1.0 is just one example of something the user community has > > > been anxiously asking for -- there are many other things... > > > > Thank you for your continued support, > > > > Sincerely, > > > Michael I Angerman > > > Albuquerque, New Mexico > > > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Below are Marzia Niccolai's comments Dec 12 regarding this issue... > > > > Marzia -- couple of comments > > > > - this an incredibly weak public response > > > > - this response COMPLETELY shows the lack of professionalism and > > commitment > > > on Google's part to deliver what it takes to make the App Engine a TRUE > > > reality that we as customers can count on to run a robust, professional > > > business on your platform. > > > > - brake should be break > > > - seems likely -- this is a technical issue that HAS TO be worked out by > > > Google > > > > I would say more here -- but if you read the words of this response > > closely, > > > its a reflection of many things that could be better... > > > > Again, in summary -- I am not trying to be overly critical -- I am just > > > trying > > > to some how get some results -- and again Django 1.0 would be it... > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Hi Alex, > > > > We are definitely interested in offering Django 1.0 with App Engine in > > the > > > future. However, it seems likely that including Django 1.0 as the > > default > > > Django version with App Engine would need to be part of an api version > > > change, since such a change would likely brake existing apps. > > > > In terms of the high CPU warnings, we are generally working on a solution > > > that will lesson the affect of such warnings on applications, so we hope > > we > > > can address this soon not just for this case, but in general. > > > > As for the time concern, there isn't much right now that can be done. > > But > > > as your application increases in popularity, it's more likely people will > > > see an already warm interpreter and thus not have to wait for a new > > > initialization. > > > > -Marzia > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
