So far I have been able to reuse the same version string anyway, handling versions before the push. Maintainability nightmares are often opportunities. Could you give a little more detail where you suspect problems would arise? Also, would they share the same memcache? I assume they would.
Thanks, Tim On Dec 16, 11:53 am, "Ikai L (Google)" <[email protected]> wrote: > It's technically possible. Both applications will use the same datastore, > but doing things this way could lead to a maintainability nightmare. > > > > On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Nash-t <[email protected]> wrote: > > There was talk about running python and java in the same application > > by using different version strings. > > > If you suspect one area of your application would run faster in java, > > maybe you could code it up in java and push it to the same server as > > your python application. > > > I don't know how they would communicate (via AJAX? memcache?) but I > > think they would both use the same data store. > > > On Dec 15, 3:29 pm, Andy Freeman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Having said that, today it turns out for me that Java runtime is much > > > > more cost effective than Python runtime in some cases > > > > The question is not whether the Java or Python runtime is more cost > > > effective in some cases, it's whether it which is more cost effective > > > in your cases. > > > > Suppose that your application does one datastore operation for each > > > page and that datastore operation and other code takes the same amount > > > of time in both Python and Java. Datastore operations are so much > > > slower than startup that this alone would make the startup difference > > > almost unnoticeable. > > > > And, as someone else pointed out, development time is a cost too. > > > > On Dec 15, 10:02 am, Takashi Matsuo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hello, > > > > > Today I noticed that App Engine Java environment became much faster > > > > then before. The spin up cost is about 700cpu_ms with the simplest > > > > servlet. Additionally, when it comes to serving with a hot instance, > > > > the cost reduces to 0-2cpu_ms, while python environment takes about > > > > 5-7cpu_ms even with the simplest handler. > > > > > To make it simple here, lets say Java takes 1cpu_ms while Python > > takes > > > > 6cpu_ms for serving very simple page. > > > > How many requests can they serve with 1 cpu hour? > > > > > Java: 3600000 requests/1 cpu hour > > > > Python: 600000 requests/1 cpu hour > > > > > This is a big deference; 6 times! If your app exceeds free quota, this > > > > deference can impact total amount of costs significantly. I'm a big > > > > Python fan and I have believed that appengine Python runtime is > > > > superior to Java runtime, so I've been trying to persuade others to > > > > use Python rather than Java for now. > > > > > Having said that, today it turns out for me that Java runtime is much > > > > more cost effective than Python runtime in some cases, so should I > > > > recommend others to use Apppengine Java if they are very sensitive to > > > > cpu costs? > > > > > I'd appreciate if anyone could share one's thoughts/experiences on > > this. > > > > > TIA > > > > > -- > > > > Takashi Matsuo > > > > Kay's daddy > > > -- > > > 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]<google-appengine%[email protected]> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/google-appengine?hl=en. > > -- > Ikai Lan > Developer Programs Engineer, Google App Engine -- 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.
