Niclas Hedhman wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Georg Ragaller <[email protected]> wrote:
Yes, that was nearly my train of thoughts, that this one could be attractive
because of its (current) generous provision of resources. Although I think
that the current free quota is not only sufficient for small apps only, and
that will even hold after the upcoming changes to the quotas (
http://code.google.com/intl/en-EN/appengine/docs/quotas.html#Free_Changes )
in my opinion. But everything is relative, even 'small' is :-).
I think Google is fairly smart in this aspect. Let the 'little guy'
get going without 'thinking' and by the time he 'makes it', we charge
him through the nose... One needs to study the numbers carefully and
make sure that the revenue stream can match the billed prices as
bandwidth, storage and CPU time rises.
Yes, of course they are smart, its their business. And of course its
everybodys own homework to read the conditions exactly :-).
Will also need to study if Qi4j is actually compatible with App Engine
at all, since there are restrictions on which JDK classes that can be
used. Time for an experiment I think.
Cheers
Although I don't know exactly what happens in qi4j internals, my rough
understanding says, that the restrictions should not be a no go,
since reflection is fully supported on own classes. So if the core does
not use reflection on other classes, it should work.
Perhaps the sticking point is really the JRE class whitelist. All the
other restriction are more related to architectural or configuration
issues, I think.
Altogether, I'm personnally *not* really interested in using AppEngine
(at least at this time), so the main reason I pointed to it was, that it
could
prove again (or not) qi4j's flexibility regarding the pluggable ES
mechanism and it could be attractive for others.
So it's really a 'nice to have' from my point of view.
So long,
Georg
_______________________________________________
qi4j-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ops4j.org/mailman/listinfo/qi4j-dev
