This sounds like a excellent use of backends. I believe that there is currently a limitation that a channel created in a frontend (ie, your default version) is not able to be used to send messages from a backend.
As noted in the Google IO talk, we are currently working on removing this restriction. For the moment, you could work around this limitation by creating the channel in the backend that you want to send messages from, then pass it back to the frontend/user. On 13 May 2011 02:37, Richard Arrano <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah that's great news then, I didn't realize that. > > Greg: Thanks for the link, I was a bit misunderstood and didn't see it > in the App Engine Samples. > > One thing that's intrigued me about the reserved backend, and it > mentions in the documentation, is to keep track of game states. I was > hoping someone could tell me if this setup would make sense: if I need > to update possibly hundreds of game states, and by update I mean > sending out actual updates via the Channel API, I thought I could do > this by two separate instances. One of which holds the data(there > isn't much data to keep track of, 128MB may be sufficient), the other > operates on a while loop that only exits when all games have completed > and runs every second or every other second using time.sleep(1000) or > 2000. It sends out updates to each client in each game that requires > updates, and gets the data from the other backend instance. Then it > would sleep until the next iteration. Is this a sensible use of > backends or is this actually more suited to tasks? I was originally > using tasks that enqueue a new task each following second to > accomplish this. Which one would be better and why? > > Thanks, > Richard > > On May 12, 11:10 am, "Gregory D'alesandre" <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 3:32 AM, Richard Arrano <[email protected]>wrote: >> >> > Hello, >> > I have a few questions about the new Backends feature: >> > It seems like a reserved backend allows us to have access to a sort of >> > unevictable memcache, is this correct? If I were doing something like >> > a game, would it be reasonable to have a single instance keep track of >> > a few pieces of vital information about each game? The sum of which >> > might be around 1MB of information at any given time. >> >> > How would I go about this anyway? Address the reserved instance and >> > how would I set a value in its memory? >> >> > And just to be clear, there's no free version of Backends, correct? >> >> Actually, there is! You get $0.72 worth of backends free per day (this can >> be used in any configuration you'd like 9 hours of a B1 or 1 hour of a B8 + >> 1 hour of a B1, etc). >> >> Greg >> >> >> >> > Thanks, >> > Richard >> >> > -- >> > 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. >> >> > > -- > 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. > > -- 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.
