[aerogear-dev] [SimplePush] Sockjs support

[Matthias Wessendorf]

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:

> And we don't have to forget that socketjs support will have "some" impact
> on the client lib ;)
>


Right, that's why I mentioned the JS library from Kris :)


>
>
>
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130527/58ab65cb/attachment.html