+1 That's my impression also. Personally, I'd appreciate the option of being able to use SQL if it was reasonably priced.
Jeff On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:01 AM, bFlood <[email protected]>wrote: > this looks to me like the features associated with GAEfB are now being > offered as add-on services to traditional GAE users. If all other > billing in GAE stays the same and we can now add these premium > services piecemeal for a monthly price, that sounds like a big win to > me. The per-user pricing that GAEfB originally had was problematic for > sites that needed to serve both internal and external customers > > my two cents... > b > > > > On Feb 11, 9:19 am, Geoffrey Spear <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Friday, February 11, 2011 2:00:09 AM UTC-5, gops wrote: > > > > > 3) For, HTTPS, Google is already charging extra for secure requests. > > > Why separate billing ? > > > > For this one, I suspect it would involve giving applications static IP > > addresses, since TLS/SNI still isn't supported on most browsers on > Windows > > XP, and the installed base of XP machines doesn't seem to be going away > any > > time soon. > > -- > 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. > > -- *Jeff Schwartz* -- 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.
