I think we can do both with priority to 1. As mentioned in my email about SPS and Vertx your server implementation can easily be used as library because you isolated all the netty code into a package.

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Daniel Bevenius < daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, > > I've been working on adding support for Sockjs to the SimplePush server. > There is a project named socksj-netty [1] which is an external project > written for Netty 3.x. > We are using Netty 4 and there have been quite a few changes between > these two versions. I've spent some time already trying to upgrade to Netty > 4 but I have not been completely successful. Testing has been hard as there > is only an external test suite [2], so it's been a matter of getting the > code base to compile and trying to change as little as possible to work > with Netty 4. > Perhaps due to my lack of understanding the sockjs-protocol I've found > this to be somewhat of guess work. There are also parts of the > sockjs-protocol that I'm not sure are implemented, like heartbeats. > > I'm now considering rewriting the sockjs-netty and use the "Netty 4 way". > This will take some time which was not planned for. > Another option that Matthias brought up was to instead use Vert.x. It was > discussed previously what we should base our implementation on and I got > the impression that we "should" stick with Netty. I've been very happy with > Netty and would like to continue with it, but this might be that I'm more > familiar with it compared to Vert.x. > > So I'd like to hear what people think: > 1. Implement Netty Sockjs > 2. Switch to Vert.x instead > > thanks, > > /Dan > > [1] https://github.com/cgbystrom/sockjs-netty > [2] https://github.com/sockjs/sockjs-protocol > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

And we don't have to forget that socketjs support will have "some" impact on the client lib ;) On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:09 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: > >> I think we can do both with priority to 1. >> As mentioned in my email about SPS and Vertx your server implementation >> can easily be used as library because you isolated all the netty code into >> a package. >> > > > That would be my vote as well. > > * Get the SockJS "wrapper" up and running > => that way, I think, we will have fast results, also on the JS side of > the things > * Work on Netty-based SockJS codec > * use our own, once the codec is ready (which COULD :) mean the wrapper > was just a temporary solution > > -Matthias > > >> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Daniel Bevenius < >> daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I've been working on adding support for Sockjs to the SimplePush >>> server. There is a project named socksj-netty [1] which is an external >>> project written for Netty 3.x. >>> We are using Netty 4 and there have been quite a few changes between >>> these two versions. I've spent some time already trying to upgrade to Netty >>> 4 but I have not been completely successful. Testing has been hard as there >>> is only an external test suite [2], so it's been a matter of getting the >>> code base to compile and trying to change as little as possible to work >>> with Netty 4. >>> Perhaps due to my lack of understanding the sockjs-protocol I've found >>> this to be somewhat of guess work. There are also parts of the >>> sockjs-protocol that I'm not sure are implemented, like heartbeats. >>> >>> I'm now considering rewriting the sockjs-netty and use the "Netty 4 >>> way". This will take some time which was not planned for. >>> Another option that Matthias brought up was to instead use Vert.x. It >>> was discussed previously what we should base our implementation on and I >>> got the impression that we "should" stick with Netty. I've been very happy >>> with Netty and would like to continue with it, but this might be that I'm >>> more familiar with it compared to Vert.x. >>> >>> So I'd like to hear what people think: >>> 1. Implement Netty Sockjs >>> 2. Switch to Vert.x instead >>> >>> thanks, >>> >>> /Dan >>> >>> [1] https://github.com/cgbystrom/sockjs-netty >>> [2] https://github.com/sockjs/sockjs-protocol >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

Hi, I've been working on adding support for Sockjs to the SimplePush server. There is a project named socksj-netty [1] which is an external project written for Netty 3.x. We are using Netty 4 and there have been quite a few changes between these two versions. I've spent some time already trying to upgrade to Netty 4 but I have not been completely successful. Testing has been hard as there is only an external test suite [2], so it's been a matter of getting the code base to compile and trying to change as little as possible to work with Netty 4. Perhaps due to my lack of understanding the sockjs-protocol I've found this to be somewhat of guess work. There are also parts of the sockjs-protocol that I'm not sure are implemented, like heartbeats. I'm now considering rewriting the sockjs-netty and use the "Netty 4 way". This will take some time which was not planned for. Another option that Matthias brought up was to instead use Vert.x. It was discussed previously what we should base our implementation on and I got the impression that we "should" stick with Netty. I've been very happy with Netty and would like to continue with it, but this might be that I'm more familiar with it compared to Vert.x.

So I'd like to hear what people think: 1. Implement Netty Sockjs 2. Switch to Vert.x instead thanks, /Dan [1] https://github.com/cgbystrom/sockjs-netty [2] https://github.com/sockjs/sockjs-protocol _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev