3 ms·
Agreed, I doubt Amazon had any evil intentions with this change. I wonder more if this was a product of Amazon developers using S3 (i.e. dogfooding) and not no
by notfunk 13y ago
Agreed, I doubt Amazon had any evil intentions with this change.
I wonder more if this was a product of Amazon developers using S3 (i.e. dogfooding) and not noticing the cost side effect because I'm assuming they don't get billed?
- nathancahill 13y agoThe change is the opposite of what you're implying, it adds the option to turn it off. Before this commit it was on by default. My guess is, when the option was added, it defaulted to validate=True to maintain backward compatibility.
- jeffbarr 13y agoWe actually do get billed, but we don't have to pay. I always check my bill to make sure that I am not using any resources that I don't need. I also pay for my own personal EC2 instance and about 350 GB of S3 storage. Begin a genuine user and customer of AWS helps me to be a better employee.
- notfunk 13y agoAhh cool! I completely agree that using your own products from a customer point of makes a better employee. Thanks for the input =)
- toomuchtodo 13y agoJeff, You may want to check LIST request statistics over the next few weeks. Between this thread, an Issue for boto, etc. I'm curious if you see a noticeable decline in LIST requests with the attention this has brought. I'm just curious from a data standpoint.
- res0nat0r 13y agoMitch just started working for AWS ~1.5 years ago or so I think? That code was written long before he worked for Amazon.