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

[09:26:37] <purplefox> cescoffier: morning

[09:26:48] <cescoffier> good morning purplefox

[10:08:10] <millrossjez> @purplefox, vertx3-pac4j is coming along reasonably nicely, since the pac4j team owned vertx-pac4j I suggested they discuss with you whether it should be part of the vert.x stack or part of the pac4j stack (and listed under vert.x awesome) - I have zero preference, it seems to me that both options achieve the end goal and either way I'm likely to be doing most of the maintenance work I guess :)

[13:32:24] <cescoffier[Away]> purplefox: we may have an issue on windows 10 and 8.1. I'm going to check what's going on (obviously no issue on vista, 7 and 8, because that would be too simple)

[16:13:58] <cescoffier[Away]> well… no problem on 8.1, but it was reported on 10. Unfortunately, I don't have windows 10

[16:30:26] <purplefox> cescoffier[Away]: what kind of issue?

[16:31:43] <cescoffier[Away]> I don't really know

[16:32:04] <cescoffier[Away]>

[16:32:22] <cescoffier[Away]> for the log, it seems that the application starts but the configuration is not read correctly

[16:33:00] <cescoffier[Away]> may not be a vert.x issue, but the command used to launch the application

[16:33:16] <cescoffier[Away]> just tested on windows 8.1 which is the latest windows I have, and no problem

[16:34:47] <purplefox> maybe some changes in windows command syntax?

[16:35:05] <purplefox> way to go backward compatibility microsoft! ;)

[16:35:14] <cescoffier> yes, I would say so, or related to / \ mixes

[16:36:10] <cescoffier> it means we will need to do some testing on win 10 before next release

[16:42:10] <cescoffier> I'm trying to get a VM with windows 10, but not that easy

[22:23:17] <ksclarke> it looks to me like the vertx-web BodyHandler creates the default directory on initialization so even if I set my own I've got the default one still on my file system

[22:23:55] <ksclarke> wondering if an alternative would be to delete the existing one before creating a new one with setUploadsDirectory?

[22:24:38] <ksclarke> or would that cause problems for things that are expected to be in there (make calling setUploadsDirectory too dangerous)?

[22:25:03] <ksclarke>