This version (2017/05/27 13:44) is a draft.
Approvals: 0/1

[11:25:04] <aesteve> hello everyone

[11:25:59] <aesteve> hope things are going well for the final release next week :)

[13:26:56] <AlexLehm> aesteve, i think Tim has posted a status on the group

[13:36:08] <aesteve> regarding the hazelcast bug ?

[13:37:43] <AlexLehm> ah, no just that they are working on that

[13:38:39] <aesteve> ok, but that's the status you were talking about ? right ?

[13:41:44] <AlexLehm> yes

[13:43:29] <aesteve> ok thanks Alex :)

[14:07:55] <aesteve> it looks like the hazelcast guys fixed the bug actually. hope they can release the 3.4.4 soon.

[16:40:16] <aesteve> I have a question regarding verticle deployment. Let's imagine I have a SuperVerticle and a SubVerticle. SuperVerticle is deployed with 4 instances and is responsible for deploying SubVerticle (with 1 instance)

[16:40:32] <aesteve> in this case SubVerticle will be deployed 4×1 times ? Right ?

[17:14:03] <AlexLehm> I have created a PR for the issues I had left in the mail project

[17:29:55] <jeremy_prime> that's how I understand it aesteve, each instance of Superverticle will deploy one instance of Subverticle

[18:15:22] <billows> Hi, All, Just want to check if there is a good way to seamless integrate vert.x into existing apache web server based system

[18:16:34] <billows> This will add a lot of value when migrating legacy systems to use vert.x

[18:24:09] <billows> Normally, enterprise infrastructure is hard to change, DMZ and firewall settings might have to go through auditing process. If there is a solution to reuse existing webserver and load balance server, replacing backend with vert.x, it can be a good enterprise solution.

[19:04:47] <steve1985> Why is there no sockjs documentation for vertx3? is it still supported?