I just want to address one thing here: There is nothing in AppEngine that is tied in any way to django or any framework. They just expose a pure CGI model and service APIs (memcache, datastore and so forth). It is designed with the standard python model in mind; CGI and WSGI.
It is included because it is the most popular framework out there, and easy to get started with. Any python framework that talks CGI or WSGI works great on appengine, including their own webapp mini-framework based on webob and django templates. That said, getting django 1.0 in appengine would be nice. I personally don't use it but I can appreciate the complexities of getting it working on your own with the current 1000 file and 1mb size limitations. Even better would be lifting those limitations so you wouldn't have to rely on them keeping it up to date. On Dec 19, 1:54 am, cz <[email protected]> wrote: > So far, for me App Engine has worked pretty well. > The issue regarding Django 1.0 is a little more complicated than "just > use zipimport and django helper" which is the standard response. While > this works and is in fact what I use, there are some issues. One is > that if your app doesn't have a lot of traffic Django is zipimported > on almost every page request and the all monkey patching at init time > doesn't seem super fast. This can blow out your CPU quota. The other > thing is that the App Engine designers obviously had Django in mind > when they designed App Engine and integrated (maybe included is a > better word) it in the API. It's not just another feature request from > the clamoring masses. > I'm skeptical that upgrading to 1.0 would cause as much anguish as > Google implies. Most serious users of Django use a zipped up 1.0 and > the upgrade would be seamless. For the others, they've had a fair > amount of time already to think about the changes and should be ready > to make the changes if they haven't already. Also, App Engine is still > beta which implies that every app running on it is in beta as well. > Current users of those apps should expect some hiccups. > I know there are a million other feature requests but this one is a > little more of a basic API fix than a feature like adding Java or > whatever (why don't the Java people just use one of the many hosted > servlet environments anyway?). > > All in all, I'm pretty excited with App Engine. It was a great excuse > to learn Python after programming in Java for many years, and I like > the simplicity and basic level of constraints of the environment. Sure > I would love a whole bunch more features but I figure they'll arrive > eventually. > It is a bit disconcerting that developer interest seems to have waned > (based on forum traffic). And I wish Google would give us a little > more open about what they are working on. I get the feeling that there > are maybe three developers working on App Engine in their spare time > and Google as a company isn't quite 100% sure they will fully support > it. Please tell me I'm wrong. > > happy programming, > - Claude > > On Dec 18, 1:12 pm, Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I can understand the frustration when there seems to be little > > movement on something that is important to you... > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
