[aerogear-dev] [SimplePush] Sockjs support

[Sebastien Blanc]

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 at apache.org>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>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 at gmail.com> 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 at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at 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 at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130527/5cd96d55/attachment.html