Differences
This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
— |
irc:1443477600 [2017/05/27 13:44] (current) |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
+ | [00:25:13] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o purplefox | ||
+ | |||
+ | [01:53:53] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o purplefox | ||
+ | |||
+ | [07:22:07] <voidDotClass> what's the latest version on maven? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [09:01:37] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o purplefox | ||
+ | |||
+ | [09:11:53] <amr> i think i know the answer to this, but do message codecs work on fields on other objects? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [09:12:14] <amr> i.e. i have a pojo with a JsonObject, will the JsonObject messagecodec get triggered? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [09:12:17] <amr> i expect/suspect not | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:07:08] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o purplefox | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:13:56] <amr> hmm, going from jsonobject -> string using Json.encode() is straightforward, going the other way using Json.decodeValue and then calling new JsonObject() is a bit fiddly | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:14:08] <amr> any reason readValue can't just inflate the JsonObject rdirectly? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:14:47] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o purplefox | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:15:39] <pmlopes> amr you can also do new JsonObject(String jsonString) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:29:59] <amr> yeah, i was just playing with using Json as a general purpose object mapper so i can pass around pojos | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:30:25] <amr> as i thought itd have (de)serializers for jsonobjects | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:31:01] <amr> serialising works as id expect, but not deserialising | ||
+ | |||
+ | [10:31:23] <amr> suppose i shouls really just make things properly typed instead of relying on jsonobject | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:46:30] <cescoffier> pmlopes: I've an issue with bower on windows. It looks it can't resolve the amd module (don't have much details). It's when you run the vertx-web client example | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:46:39] <cescoffier> any hint you can give me ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:47:35] <pmlopes> is that with the 3.0.0-1? or just the latest git? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:54:49] <purplefox> cescoffier: clement, is the new launcher stuff currently active in vertx-core master? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:57:39] <cescoffier> purplefox: yes, except the redeploy | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:57:43] <cescoffier> I'm going to open the PR today | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:58:28] <purplefox> cescoffier: i have an possible issue with -ha | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:58:48] <purplefox> cescoffier: it seems that if i specify -ha at the command line using a fatjar the verticle doesn't get deployed | ||
+ | |||
+ | [11:59:09] <cescoffier> run -ha ? or just -ha ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:01:00] <cescoffier> but it might be a regression | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:01:15] <cescoffier> java -jar my-fat-jar -ha should launch the jar in ha mode right ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:01:50] <cescoffier> (and deploy it) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:02:47] <purplefox> ah forget it.. .the user is using an old vert.x version :( | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:02:52] <purplefox> sorry for the noise | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:03:02] <cescoffier> no problem | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:03:52] <cescoffier> I ran all the previous test with the launcher to detect regression, it's not exhaustive, so we may have some. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:04:11] <cescoffier> BTW, I've ran all test (except vertx-web) on windows this morning | ||
+ | |||
+ | [12:04:16] <cescoffier> everything fine (on 3.1) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [13:31:57] *** ChanServ sets mode: +o temporalfox | ||
+ | |||
+ | [14:28:26] <amr> how unique does a message codec's systemCodecID need to be? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [14:31:49] <amr> i have a generic-y message codec that i add per class i use for messages (~5/6) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [14:32:04] <amr> but it's one implementation... so defining the systemCodecId isnt terribly easy | ||
+ | |||
+ | [14:34:16] <amr> oh, set it to -1, interesting | ||
+ | |||
+ | [14:34:55] <amr> i need to rtfsc | ||
+ | |||
+ | [15:43:41] <Sticky> is there for a given message a way to turn off the no handlers exception? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:16:41] <purplefox> cescoffier: pmlopes: temporalfox: would anyone like to look at a potential clustering bug? I think this would be good practice for someone to get up to speed with core / clustering :) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:17:04] <temporalfox> @purplefox I can spend time on this | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:17:16] <purplefox> cool | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:17:47] <purplefox> temporalfox: here's the issue: https://github.com/vert-x3/vertx-hazelcast/issues/13 | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:05] <purplefox> it's a race condition and only occurs if the kill to both nodes happens concurrently | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:11] <purplefox> it could be a bug in hazelcast | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:14] <temporalfox> ok | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:17] <temporalfox> sounds fun | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:25] <purplefox> i had a quick look, but i'm not 100% sure | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:33] <purplefox> yes a lot of fun ;) | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:41] <temporalfox> how do you investigate this ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:45] <temporalfox> with hazelcast logging ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:18:47] <temporalfox> wireshark ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:19:02] <temporalfox> system.out.println ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:19:06] <temporalfox> a bit of everything :-) ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:19:27] <purplefox> first i would reproduce the issue then add logging in the vert.x code (vertx-core and vertx-hazelcast) to see what is going on | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:19:35] <temporalfox> ok | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:19:45] <temporalfox> I'll let you know my progress | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:19:57] <purplefox> thanks. if you need any help ping me | ||
+ | |||
+ | [16:20:26] <temporalfox> sure | ||
+ | |||
+ | [20:57:53] <pulse00> hi all. can anyone recommend any examplex for vertx-web form validation and binding? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [20:58:38] <Sticky> not sure if any of the examples do validation | ||
+ | |||
+ | [20:59:33] <pulse00> are complex forms a thing vertx-web would be a good candidate for? or do you think something like play or grails is better suited for that in the jvm ? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:03:22] <Sticky> so it really depends on what you are out for I think, from my breif play with grails, like most of those style tools you get a lot out of the box very quick, but as soon as you want to do something a bit uniq/outside their idomatic way it gets painful fast | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:04:32] <Sticky> vertx by comparison does not really provide you THAT much out of the box, but does not really dictate how to write/structure your app so much | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:08:34] <pulse00> yeah, i have the same view on that. so i'm basically looking for something less opinionated (it seems vertx is designed that way). the only thing i really think should be handled by he web-layer is form-binding and validation, where i'd rather not reinvent the weel. | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:08:53] <Sticky> also since with vertx there is less magic going on behind the scenes, some problems I have with those frameworks is that since they hide much of the detail of how the app is working from you, diagnosing issues when things go wrong becomes a nightmare | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:10:04] <Sticky> so form binding is easy enough, since your form should make a post request, so you will get a JsonObject server side with your data | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:10:19] <Sticky> however validation afaik, is up to you | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:10:43] <Sticky> having said that I havent used vertx-web that much so there could be something in there | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:11:20] <pulse00> i've stumbled upon this here https://github.com/pmlopes/yoke which seems to have some abstractions for forms | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:11:57] <Sticky> oh yeah that, is that vertx 3? | ||
+ | |||
+ | [21:12:40] <pulse00> meh, doesn't look like https://github.com/pmlopes/yoke/blob/develop/pom.xml#L112 | ||