W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-web-intents@w3.org > November 2011

App Engine Over Quota Re: Web Intents - Suggested Deliverables (part 2)

From: Paul Kinlan <paulkinlan@google.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 22:12:08 +0000
Message-ID: <CADGdg3Am6E+GJk5uHXHedhsXDAvR1pCBU84LNNe0VJ2SefjVeA@mail.gmail.com>
To: timeless <timeless@gmail.com>
Cc: public-web-intents@w3.org, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com>
Hi Guys,

It turns out a large partner enabled web intents today with the shim
and took it over my quota for the AppEngine.  This has now been
resolved.  Sorry for the inconvenience.

P

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 9:58 PM, timeless <timeless@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 22, 2011 at 1:39 PM, Greg Billock <gbillock@google.com> wrote:
>
>>> Basic Audiences: Clients, User Agents, Partner Providers, and Users.
>> As a linguistic note, Paul, James and I have been referring to "Partner
>> Providers" as "Services."
>
> I intentionally picked awkward terms so that I wouldn't step on anyone
> else's terms and also with the hope that people could list pairings
> where they exist.
>
>>> D. Action Description Framework.
>
>> Our proposal
>> athttps://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/developers/design-documents/webintentsapi
>> focuses on the API syntax, but these definitions will be very
>> important.http://webintents.org/#defaultintentshas more of our current
>> thinking on this.
>
> App Engine Error
>
>
>  Over Quota
>  This Google App Engine application is temporarily over its serving
> quota. Please try again later.
>
>
> For posterity, and the benefit of readers, could you possibly at some
> point provide the current thinking to the list?
>
>
>>> Now that could be one document, but I expect at least Five.
>>> Probably 3 + n  (Best Practices) + m  (Basic Actions).
>>
>> Sounds good to me. What's your advice? Is it better to structure it as fewer
>> documents (with anchors to sections of course)? Or is it more digestible to
>> structure it as more documents?
>
> I tend to start writing documents and just letting them grow. This
> thread is for Part 2 of what I believe is 5 items (I'm almost ready to
> send the last 2 parts) was originally going to be a single message. I
> got feedback that it was likely to hit TL;DR if i sent it that way, so
> I split it up.
>
> I believe that most of these items will be fairly independent, once
> terminology is chosen. As someone who is going to be looking at into
> doing something will probably only care about one section at a time.
> If they're writing a Partner Provider, the only parts that would
> interest them at all are Best Practices for Partner Providers, User
> Agent Bindings, Action Description Framework, and Basic Action
> examples. And at any point in time, they're really only going to care
> about one of those things. The other sections would get in their way.
>
> We could go the HTML5 approach of having a single Full Document and
> splitting it into subdocuments, but I suspect the CSS3 approach of
> multiple small documents with someone occasionally stitching them
> together would be better.
>
>



-- 
Paul Kinlan
Developer Advocate @ Google for Chrome and HTML5
G+: http://plus.ly/paul.kinlan
t: +447730517944
tw: @Paul_Kinlan
LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/paulkinlan
Blog: http://paul.kinlan.me
Skype: paul.kinlan
Received on Tuesday, 22 November 2011 22:12:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:14:45 UTC