Totally agree!!! GAE should not be bundled with Python or Django. Update python or Django and break existing application is real 'not serious' People who want to keep update with a specific newest technology should set up their own environment. Migrate one application is totally different than migrate a whole framework like GAE. Make it stable and high performance is much more important than add some new feature only some of people need (and we already have workaround)
Personal opinion, after playing with python and Django on GAE for two month, I believe Ruby and RfR is much more elegant. So I want to see the new language of GAE will be Ruby. On Dec 19, 8:26 am, luismgz <[email protected]> wrote: > Michael, you should know that what's important to you may not be high > priority to others. > Just look at the appengine issues web site and you'll see what people > are interested in and which issues get most of the votes. > > For example, I don't use Django (although it seems to be a fine > framework) because thank God App Engine supports any framework which > is wsgi compliant. > What's more, some of them work right out of the box without requiring > any modification at all. > Django is not equivalent to App Engine, nor it is fundamental > component of it. It's just a (valuable) option for creating web apps > in appengine. > > I also believe that criticizing Marzia's professionalism for writing > "brake" instead of break is something completely absurd from your > part. > We all commit typos while writing, specially in the internet age, and > you don't know what's Marzia's origin or mother tongue. > So far he/she seems to be doing extremely well. > > Luis > > On Dec 18, 5:06 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
