Waldemar, Once again, thanks for all your work. I'll take some time to mull over your suggestions. There are definitely weighty arguments for all the different vectors: going all-in with a full Django port; favoring a lightweight (all frameworks are lightweight in the beginning, no?) Appengine-only-framework approach; or allowing a migration away from all 'frameworks' and maintain an inward focus on the application itself.
Happy New Year - and let's hope the upcoming year brings great progress in whatever vector is the right one :) johnP On Dec 29, 3:55 pm, Waldemar Kornewald <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi John, > > > > > > On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 7:42 PM, johnP <[email protected]> wrote: > > Waldemar, > > > First - thank you for your efforts. > > > I just wanted to know your advice. We built an application based on > > Appengine Patch that's gaining momentum. There is an installed user > > base that we need to support going forward. The main features of > > Appengine Patch that I'm using are sessions, Django authentication > > (User Modules) and Modelform > > > I'm OK with using Google-style Models. If required - can port > > ModelForms to Forms easily. So what's left is Sessions and Auth. > > > So far, everything works fine. My main worry is that someday, changes > > to Appengine may break my installed AEP. > > > The question, more specifically, is: what kinds of suggestions would > > you make to a person in my position: Using AEP; have lots of users > > based on the AEP User models; and wanting to have the flexibility to > > move forward as a part of a dynamic and supported framework? There > > are no problems at this moment. But wanted to hear your advice for > > going forward. > > Well, the code is open-source, so you could fix AEP yourself or even > maintain the port yourself (should be easy enough, at least with your > requirements). > > Alternatively, you could port your code to one of the GAE-only > frameworks like Kay (which is most similar to Django) or a > GAE-independent framework like web2py. > > Finally, you could help with finishing the native Django port. > > Kay is basically a one-man show, so at least from today's perspective > you could end up in the same situation as with AEP. Maybe web2py is a > better option, but that requires a bigger porting effort on your side. > > I'd of course prefer that a few people help with the native Django > port and after that help to solve the really important cloud computing > complexities. Just imagine what you could achieve with automatic > denormalization:http://code.google.com/p/django-denorm/ > And we could go far beyond that. The native Django port is only one > small step on the roadmap. But we need contributors if we want to get > there. > > Bye, > Waldemar Kornewald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "app-engine-patch" 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/app-engine-patch?hl=en.
