+1 on better explanation please. I had almost finished something similar to IntenseDebate, external commenting system that is. ID is completely free with many nice features, it is also super-easy to inject into your website, unfortunately it does not meet 2 very fundamental requirements I have. By the time I was realizing ID does not meet my needs I was quite confident I wouldn't get anywhere close to the limits of free quota. Mea Culpa obviously. I'm yet to start my app but after reading the "GAE running costs" thread I'm re-evaluating my opinion here...
The users (admins in this case) are intentionally completely independent from how each accessing site treats user identities, therefore having this system as separated app still seems as the most logical approach to me. I like the concept of external/shared commenting system, and that was also the primary reason to write my own that way. But currently I'm rewriting my commenting system, to avoid any arguing, doubts or lost accounts, so it can exist within my 'primary app'. (That's mostly messing with modules, which I'm not very familiar with yet.) But I also think some more detailed explanation should be made in the TOS on what's considered "no-no". On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 11:01 PM, kstewart <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks for the input everyone. > > I can think of many reasons why one would want an admin app to be > deployed as a different app. It has a totally different user base, > functionality, SLA, deployment schedule, analytics... I'm not as > concerned about what it costs as I am about being able to redeploy the > admin portion whenever I want without affecting the customers. This > is not something completely out of the ordinary. > > I wasn't aware of this in the TOS and will have to look into it. The > intention was not to avoid fees, but to separate functionality. > That's an incorrect statement however, that the admin app nas no > "user" parts. There are admin users who have completely different > functionality and different data, they just need to be able to read/ > write some data for the other app. > > Using a different version I guess might solve the problem. It would > still be nice if someone from Google can officially weigh in on > whether it's possible and if it would violate the TOS. > > This was not meant to be a semantic discussion of why one would want > to separate functionality or how to subvert the TOS, I simply wanted > to know whether this is possible > > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
