A few thoughts:
1- What do we need the database for? Why use a non-relational persistent store? Wouldn't it be easier and also more flexible to go for something that is more widely available, where the choice is greater, etc.? The bigtable/hbase store sounds interesting, however, I'm not sure that suits our needs, but maybe it does? I don't know enough of the type of the data we are interested in storing to be able to make that decision. It doesn't seem to me like we're going to be storing hierarchical data, but just data that refers to a particular verse or chapter. Is it that what you mean by hierarchical? I've never used such a datastore, but it sounds interesting and fun to learn with. I'm just wondering if we are possibly excluding other potential help later on? and tying us down to relatively new technology. Either way, I think we should make a decision soon, and then go for it.
2- GAE sounds interesting, but I'm not sure I'd like to tie myself down to one particular provider. Aren't there also some licensing issues around GAE? There are some distributions issues around distribution of JSword that we'd have to look at, even though the JSword/Sword software is free for use.
3- I think it would be a better idea to integrate with the JSword api, rather than take the content out from it. They continually add new versions of the bible, new languages, etc. and therefore it would make more sense to use that and benefit from that, than taking one bible once, and then being tied to that particular version and language.
4- GAE Terms of conditions:
"6.1. You acknowledge and agree that Google (or Google's licensors) own all legal right, title and interest in and to the Service, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in the Service (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist).
6.2. Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, nothing in the Terms gives you a right to use any of Google's trade names, trade marks, service marks, logos, domain names, and other distinctive brand features.
6.3. Except as provided in Section 8, Google acknowledges and agrees that it obtains no right, title or interest from you (or your licensors) under these Terms in or to any Content or the Application that you create, submit, post, transmit or display on, or through, the Service, including any intellectual property rights which subsist in that Content and the Application (whether those rights happen to be registered or not, and wherever in the world those rights may exist). Unless you have agreed otherwise in writing with Google, you agree that you are responsible for protecting and enforcing those rights and that Google has no obligation to do so on your behalf.
"
Not really sure what 6.1 means. 6.3 seems to imply the developer keeps the rights...
"
8.1. Google claims no ownership or control over any Content or Application. You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in the Content and/or Application, and you are responsible for protecting those rights, as appropriate. By submitting, posting or displaying the Content on or through the Service you give Google a worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such Content for the sole purpose of enabling Google to provide you with the Service in accordance with its privacy policy. Furthermore, by creating an Application through use of the Service, you give Google a worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive license to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such Application for the sole purpose of enabling Google to provide you with the Service in accordance with its privacy policy.
8.2. You agree that Google, in its sole discretion, may use your trade names, trademarks, service marks, logos, domain names and other distinctive brand features in presentations, marketing materials, customer lists, financial reports and Web site listings (including links to your website) for the purpose of advertising or publicizing your use of the Service."
Seems to imply it's probably ok? Except perhaps the "Adapt" part
How much cross-web integration/interaction does GAE allow?
5- I like the sound of this: http://code.google.com/apis/gears/architecture.html for GEARS.
6- I love the sounds of this: http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/overview.html (GWT)
7- I think we've got some good architecture ideas here. I'm just raising here the fact that GEARS has a relational db, whereas GAE would be non-relational. Unless of course, we find someway of using a non-relational DB as part of GEARS
Cheers
Chris
No comments:
Post a Comment