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.


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