I have been recived some job offers to develop simple static pages (only with a contact form) and I have been tempted to suggest appengine for the hosting, but, is this appropiate? I don't want to see appengine become in the new geocities.
A:
Well, AppEngine gives you access to Google's CDN, which is useful. But you might look at SimpleCDN, S3 (and/or CloudFront), AOL's CDN, and such before making a recommendation.
T.J. Crowder
2010-01-22 17:33:30
well, i live in México, so, the free quotas ($) it's a big handicap in favor to appengine
Kristian Damian
2010-01-22 17:36:59
A:
hosting static pages is fine as it gives the scope to grow and since low hit pages wont cost anything in hosting is win win. Also putting your own domqin can be useful for brainding.g
AutomatedTester
2010-01-22 17:38:56
+1
A:
Google Sites could also be a possibility for hosting static pages. Uploading HTML files directly is not supported, but you could copy and past the source of the pages you have created as described here.
tomlog
2010-01-22 17:42:03
A:
If you are only serving static pages, it will be easy to move the website somewhere else if AppEngine ever does disappear like geocities.
Peter Recore
2010-01-22 17:49:28
+1
A:
One limitation that you should take into consideration before suggesting this solution is that AppEngine will not work with naked domain names. In other words, if your client wants to host static webpages at myawesomedomain.com, you would have make sure that users were making requests to www.myawesomedomain.com.
Adam Crossland
2010-01-22 17:56:22
+3
A:
I think so. It's free after all, so worth a shot. You can even use something like DryDrop (http://drydrop.binaryage.com/) to make it super easy to manage.
RyanW
2010-01-22 20:54:02