I understand the need to have 0.96 available for applications that want/prefer it, but at some point, couldn't google make 1.0 the preloaded default and require applications to zip load 0.96 if they want it?
On Jun 22, 2:17 am, "Nick Johnson (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stephen, > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2009 at 4:21 AM, Stephen Mayer <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > If I want to use the new Django 1.x support do I replace the django > > install in the app engine SDK ... or do I add it to my app as a > > module? If I add it ... how do I prevent it from being uploaded with > > the rest of the app? > > For how to use Django 1.0 in App Engine, see > here:http://code.google.com/appengine/docs/python/tools/libraries.html#Django > > I'm also wondering about Django performance. Here was my test case: > > > create a very basic app Django Patch ... display a page (no db > > reads ... just display a template) > > ... point mon.itor.us at it every 30 minutes ... latency is about > > 1500-2000ms. I assume it's because Django Patch zips up django into a > > package and the package adds overhead ... the first time it's hit the > > app server has to unzip it (or is it every time it's hit?) Woah ... > > that seemed a bit high for my taste ... I want my app to be reasonably > > performant ... and that's not reasonable. > > The first request to a runtime requires that the runtime be initialized, all > the modules loaded, etcetera. On top of that, as you point out, Django > itself has to be zipimported, which increases latency substantially. If the > ping every 30 minutes is the only traffic to your app, what you're seeing is > the worst-case latency, every single request. Using the built-in Django will > decrease latency substantially, but more significantly, requests that hit an > existing runtime (the vast majority of them, for a popular app) will see far > superior latencies, since they don't need to load anything. > > > > > > > Try 2: > > create a very basic app displaying a template, use the built in django > > template engine but without any of the other django stuff ... use the > > GAE webapp as my framework. response time is now down to 100-200ms on > > average, according to mon.itor.us. I assume this would come down > > further if my app proved popular enough to keep it on a server for any > > length of time. > > > I'm brand new to python, app engine and django ... I have about 10 > > years of experience with PHP and am a pretty good developer in the PHP > > space. I would like to work on GAE with some sense of what the best > > practices are for scalable and performant apps. > > > Here are my conclusions based on my very simple research thus far: > > 1) Django comes at a cost ... especially if you don't use the default > > install that comes built with the SDK. > > 2) Best practices is probably to pick and choose django components on > > GAE but use webapp as your primary framework. > > This depends on what you want to achieve, and on personal preference. > > -Nick Johnson > > > > > Thoughts? Am I off here? > > -- > Nick Johnson, App Engine Developer Programs Engineer > Google Ireland Ltd. :: Registered in Dublin, Ireland, Registration Number: > 368047 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
