Hi Waldemar - Making it practical to include libraries and frameworks with app code is the priority. We'd rather support multiple compatible frameworks equally well than support a custom version of just one. As I've ranted about before, I think most app developers need control over their dependencies more than they need the convenience of a bundled framework. We bundled Django because parts of it work out of the box on App Engine, and using those parts makes getting started easier. We'll upgrade the bundled version with the next API version because it's a frequent feature request and generally the right thing to do. But products like your app-engine-patch are the real story for frameworks.
-- Dan On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 5:09 AM, Waldemar Kornewald <[email protected]>wrote: > > Hi Dan, > > On Feb 10, 5:05 am, Dan Sanderson <[email protected]> wrote: > > As for bundling Django, we plan to upgrade the bundled Django with the > next > > major version of the Python runtime environment. Upgrading Django 0.96 > to > > 1.0 in place does not meet our criteria for a backwards compatible > change, > > and so cannot happen without a major version bump. > > It's not really a pratical solution to have an unpatched Django > release which gets monkey-patched. The django-helper's monkey-patching > technique works at a small scale, but if you need the admin interface > and the other interesting Django features you have to stay compatible > with very specific implementation details (this can even happen for > minor features), so even upgrading between API-compatible bugfix > releases (Django 1.0 => 1.0.2) could break at least django-helper > which means you break a whole website. Thus, you couldn't even provide > bugfix releases without introducing a new API version. > > I can see only two practical options: > > 1. Remove Django from App Engine and let everyone take care of > installing it, manually. That's what most of us already do. We just > need a solution for the request timeouts, but maybe they're related to > the zipimport bug which finally got identified? > > 2. Patch Django in-place and bundle the pre-patched version with App > Engine, so we get a real Django port. This is only acceptable if you > support almost all of Django's features, including the admin > interface. Even better, Django 1.2 or 1.3 might come with support for > query backends, so it could be possible to provide a backend that > makes Django's Model class compatible with App Engine. I've started > documenting the high-level changes here: > http://code.djangoproject.com/wiki/AppEngine > The discussion is here: > > http://groups.google.com/group/django-developers/browse_thread/thread/516626d18f6f3fca?hl=en > > Maybe I missed something. What plan did you have? > > Bye, > Waldemar Kornewald > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
