| 2010-02-10 06:44:22 utc | anb_ | Hello everyone |
| 2010-02-10 06:44:27 utc | jmettraux | Hello ! |
| 2010-02-10 06:45:10 utc | tosch_le | Hi! |
| 2010-02-10 06:45:58 utc | jmettraux | tosch_le : I'll work a bit later tonight on engine#configure |
| 2010-02-10 06:46:30 utc | tosch_le | Thanks. No need to hurry :-) |
| 2010-02-10 07:08:48 utc | tosch_le | thinking about engine#configure, i suppose a truly working solution will be really hard. thought about a message to notify the other engines about the new config, but that will only work for engines with attached workers. worker-less engines will never process those messages, won't they? |
| 2010-02-10 07:33:36 utc | tosch_le | ruote-on-rails has a (working) rails3 branch now |
| 2010-02-10 07:33:55 utc | jmettraux | back from espresso |
| 2010-02-10 07:36:53 utc | jmettraux | tosch_le : about configure, I was looking at http://github.com/jmettraux/ruote/blob/ruote2.1/lib/ruote/context.rb#L41-68 |
| 2010-02-10 07:37:41 utc | jmettraux | and thinking I'll probably write something that writes and read to the storage directly |
| 2010-02-10 07:38:21 utc | jmettraux | except for "s_xxx" which are services and not configuration items |
| 2010-02-10 07:38:37 utc | jmettraux | so that once you write, it's for everybody |
| 2010-02-10 07:39:10 utc | jmettraux | I was kind of liking the actual way, were configuration only occurs at start time |
| 2010-02-10 07:39:25 utc | jmettraux | but since a worker can be started at any time (later) |
| 2010-02-10 07:39:33 utc | jmettraux | engine#configure is legitimate |
| 2010-02-10 07:39:36 utc | jmettraux | . |
| 2010-02-10 07:39:47 utc | jmettraux | congrats for the rails3 branch |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:01 utc | kennethkalmer | afternoon/morning guys |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:08 utc | jmettraux | morning ! |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:13 utc | jmettraux | coffee ? |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:19 utc | tosch_le | hi kenneth! |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:22 utc | kennethkalmer | dopio :) |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:28 utc | kennethkalmer | erm, doppio :) |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:35 utc | jmettraux | ACTION emits doppio to Kenneth |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:46 utc | kennethkalmer | ACTION consumes |
| 2010-02-10 07:49:46 utc | jmettraux | ACTION emits tea for Torsten |
| 2010-02-10 07:50:05 utc | tosch_le | ACTION consumes |
| 2010-02-10 07:50:11 utc | tosch_le | thanks :-) |
| 2010-02-10 07:50:20 utc | jmettraux | you're welcome :) |
| 2010-02-10 07:51:02 utc | tosch_le | snowflakes are gently falling down through the air outside... |
| 2010-02-10 07:51:45 utc | kennethkalmer | nice |
| 2010-02-10 07:52:51 utc | tosch_le | no, it isn't. it's cold, wet, slippery. i'm fed up with the winter here ;-) |
| 2010-02-10 07:54:01 utc | kennethkalmer | well, I still have to experience the novelty of snow, so pardon my ignorance ;) |
| 2010-02-10 07:57:48 utc | tosch_le | still in shit storm at work? |
| 2010-02-10 08:00:35 utc | kennethkalmer | kinda winding down |
| 2010-02-10 08:00:42 utc | kennethkalmer | the last few days was epic |
| 2010-02-10 08:00:51 utc | kennethkalmer | too much happening all over the show |
| 2010-02-10 08:01:00 utc | kennethkalmer | from billing, to infrastructure, to failovers failing |
| 2010-02-10 08:01:18 utc | kennethkalmer | hoping today I can quickly chef for DNS nodes |
| 2010-02-10 08:01:29 utc | kennethkalmer | and then carry on with /participants and /errors |
| 2010-02-10 08:01:36 utc | kennethkalmer | as well as documentation updates for bundler |
| 2010-02-10 08:02:44 utc | tosch_le | sounds great. |
| 2010-02-10 08:03:07 utc | tosch_le | drop a line if i can help at any point. |
| 2010-02-10 08:03:38 utc | kennethkalmer | definitely |
| 2010-02-10 08:38:36 utc | jmettraux | kennethkalmer: do you see synergies between chef and ruote ? |
| 2010-02-10 08:39:07 utc | kennethkalmer | truthfully, none really |
| 2010-02-10 08:39:24 utc | kennethkalmer | it saddens me in fact |
| 2010-02-10 08:39:32 utc | kennethkalmer | maybe with chef-solo there is potential |
| 2010-02-10 08:39:51 utc | kennethkalmer | actaully, with chef-solo there is a lot of potential |
| 2010-02-10 08:40:04 utc | kennethkalmer | but chef itself is not a 'fire and forget' scenario |
| 2010-02-10 08:40:30 utc | kennethkalmer | hmmm |
| 2010-02-10 08:40:47 utc | jmettraux | :) |
| 2010-02-10 08:40:52 utc | kennethkalmer | another option is to have a participant that manipulates chef-server through the api |
| 2010-02-10 08:40:59 utc | kennethkalmer | that could work |
| 2010-02-10 08:43:58 utc | jmettraux | could recipes be business processes ? |
| 2010-02-10 08:46:51 utc | kennethkalmer | nope |
| 2010-02-10 08:46:59 utc | kennethkalmer | recipes describe the state of the machine |
| 2010-02-10 08:47:10 utc | jmettraux | aaah |
| 2010-02-10 08:47:13 utc | kennethkalmer | totally imdepotent |
| 2010-02-10 08:47:15 utc | kennethkalmer | however |
| 2010-02-10 08:47:41 utc | kennethkalmer | a participant could be used to apply recipes to a node |
| 2010-02-10 08:47:52 utc | kennethkalmer | or update the attributes of a node |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:04 utc | jmettraux | *) |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:06 utc | jmettraux | :)[ |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:09 utc | jmettraux | aaargh |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:10 utc | kennethkalmer | ;) |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:12 utc | jmettraux | :) I Mean |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:18 utc | kennethkalmer | speed wobbles |
| 2010-02-10 08:48:58 utc | kennethkalmer | if i stumble across a synergy, i will pursue it |
| 2010-02-10 08:50:32 utc | jmettraux | If you want/need it |
| 2010-02-10 09:29:16 utc | anb_ | before I look further, any known problems with workitems list for a given process in latest ruote-kit ? |
| 2010-02-10 09:29:59 utc | jmettraux | /workitems/:wfid ? |
| 2010-02-10 09:30:06 utc | anb_ | yes |
| 2010-02-10 09:30:36 utc | anb_ | was working, I pulled lastest git and know I'm getting an error at storage_participant |
| 2010-02-10 09:30:41 utc | anb_ | *now |
| 2010-02-10 09:30:54 utc | anb_ | but I probably messed something up |
| 2010-02-10 09:30:58 utc | jmettraux | http://github.com/kennethkalmer/ruote-kit/commit/6422e9aaeeb7e114ff72f939630af84d8352f4c6 |
| 2010-02-10 09:31:10 utc | jmettraux | fresh commit by tosch_le |
| 2010-02-10 09:32:03 utc | jmettraux | http://github.com/kennethkalmer/ruote-kit/blob/6422e9aaeeb7e114ff72f939630af84d8352f4c6/lib/ruote-kit/resources/workitems.rb#L25-33 |
| 2010-02-10 09:32:18 utc | kennethkalmer | your ruote version on 2.1.6 ? |
| 2010-02-10 09:32:31 utc | anb_ | 2.1.5 |
| 2010-02-10 09:32:56 utc | anb_ | maybe I should pull your ruote, kenneth ? since I'm using it through ruote-kit mostly |
| 2010-02-10 09:33:14 utc | anb_ | and thanks John, you're fast :) |
| 2010-02-10 09:33:14 utc | kennethkalmer | 2.1.6, mine is a bit behind |
| 2010-02-10 09:33:20 utc | kennethkalmer | i'm playing catchup |
| 2010-02-10 09:33:36 utc | anb_ | oki |
| 2010-02-10 09:33:59 utc | jmettraux | you're welcome |
| 2010-02-10 09:34:37 utc | tosch_le | updating to ruote 2.1.6 should help. stumpled upon that yesterday |
| 2010-02-10 09:35:19 utc | anb_ | yes, it is working now with 2.1.6 |
| 2010-02-10 09:41:55 utc | jmettraux | great ! |
| 2010-02-10 10:07:00 utc | anb_ | feature request : I would be interested in having participant.by_field available in the ruote-kit get "/_ruote/workitems. or maybe I can just fork ruote-kit right ? |
| 2010-02-10 10:07:39 utc | tosch_le | right ;-) |
| 2010-02-10 10:09:08 utc | anb_ | at the moment you can do /_ruote/workitems?participant=someparticipant ... would it be confusing to have /_ruote/workitems?anystring=anyvalue and it would search by_field anystring with value any value ? |
| 2010-02-10 10:10:52 utc | jmettraux | sounds alright |
| 2010-02-10 10:11:06 utc | tosch_le | what about /_ruote/workitems?field[foo]=bar ? |
| 2010-02-10 10:11:23 utc | tosch_le | s/field/fields/ |
| 2010-02-10 10:11:37 utc | tosch_le | more verbose |
| 2010-02-10 10:12:02 utc | jmettraux | participant= implies you shouldn't name a field 'participant' |
| 2010-02-10 10:12:20 utc | anb_ | that's why I was afraid of it being a little confusing |
| 2010-02-10 10:12:43 utc | tosch_le | ?fields[participant]=searchstring |
| 2010-02-10 10:12:45 utc | tosch_le | would work ;-) |
| 2010-02-10 10:12:51 utc | jmettraux | :) |
| 2010-02-10 10:13:08 utc | jmettraux | but I love the simple ?fieldname=fieldvalue |
| 2010-02-10 10:13:17 utc | jmettraux | (but it's only me) |
| 2010-02-10 10:14:13 utc | jmettraux | ?f:xxx=yyy |
| 2010-02-10 10:14:32 utc | jmettraux | is 1:1 with process definitions |
| 2010-02-10 10:15:01 utc | anb_ | and should allow ?f:xxx=yyy&participant=someparticipant |
| 2010-02-10 10:15:26 utc | jmettraux | checking if ":" is authorized |
| 2010-02-10 10:16:34 utc | anb_ | I think it should be encoded |
| 2010-02-10 10:16:44 utc | jmettraux | http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3986#section-2.2 yes |
| 2010-02-10 10:17:04 utc | tosch_le | will ?f:foo=bar&f:gnu=gna&participant=moo,mee,maa work? |
| 2010-02-10 10:17:28 utc | jmettraux | ?fields[fieldname]=fieldvalue looks good |
| 2010-02-10 10:17:57 utc | jmettraux | sincerely I would go ?fieldname=fieldvalue, but it's your decision guys |
| 2010-02-10 10:18:40 utc | jmettraux | Kenneth: wdyt ? |
| 2010-02-10 10:19:14 utc | anb_ | tosh_le, yes I would like to "and" the criterion |
| 2010-02-10 10:19:21 utc | anb_ | if possible |
| 2010-02-10 10:19:31 utc | anb_ | but we shouldn't use the colon in the url |
| 2010-02-10 10:19:47 utc | anb_ | brackets are fine I think |
| 2010-02-10 10:20:08 utc | kennethkalmer | i also think brackets are fine for scoping |
| 2010-02-10 10:20:18 utc | jmettraux | beware of web frameworks that use them for nested fields |
| 2010-02-10 10:20:49 utc | kennethkalmer | participant=foo <- participant name, or participant field |
| 2010-02-10 10:21:02 utc | kennethkalmer | if participant field, rk would be hardcoded to participant name |
| 2010-02-10 10:21:14 utc | kennethkalmer | hence field[participant] might be more clear |
| 2010-02-10 10:21:22 utc | kennethkalmer | just my 2c |
| 2010-02-10 10:21:37 utc | anb_ | yes but what's the likelyhood of having a field named participant |
| 2010-02-10 10:21:47 utc | anb_ | but who knows :) |
| 2010-02-10 10:21:58 utc | kennethkalmer | we only have to worry about sinatra in the case of nested params |
| 2010-02-10 10:22:06 utc | jmettraux | not rails ? |
| 2010-02-10 10:22:07 utc | tosch_le | its not entirely unlikely. |
| 2010-02-10 10:22:36 utc | tosch_le | (the field named 'participant', i mean) |
| 2010-02-10 10:22:43 utc | anb_ | yup |
| 2010-02-10 10:23:13 utc | tosch_le | just think about a user registration process or stuff like that. i could imagine naming a field 'participant' in there |
| 2010-02-10 10:24:24 utc | jmettraux | ok |
| 2010-02-10 10:24:58 utc | anb_ | I'll fork rk and go with ?fields[fieldname]=value |
| 2010-02-10 10:25:03 utc | anb_ | thanks guys |
| 2010-02-10 10:25:19 utc | jmettraux | ok |
| 2010-02-10 10:25:27 utc | jmettraux | RK team OK ? |
| 2010-02-10 10:25:29 utc | tosch_le | do we really have to worry about the brackets? sinatra will fill the params array for us in a convenient way IIRC: |
| 2010-02-10 10:25:31 utc | tosch_le | params = {'fields' => {'foo' => 'bar', 'gnu' => 'gna'}, 'participant' => 'mee,moo,maa'} |
| 2010-02-10 10:27:07 utc | tosch_le | looking forward to see the commit(s). unsure if you should fork my repository or wait for kenneth to answer my pull request? |
| 2010-02-10 10:27:47 utc | kennethkalmer | it is git, i'll get the commits :) |
| 2010-02-10 10:28:18 utc | kennethkalmer | jmettraux: because of rk being middleware, rails never gets access to /_ruote/* |
| 2010-02-10 10:28:32 utc | kennethkalmer | and rails is a good rack citizen |
| 2010-02-10 10:28:41 utc | jmettraux | excellent |
| 2010-02-10 10:29:36 utc | jmettraux | have to relocate, tosch_le, I'm working hard on engine#configure (well rather on what lies under it) |
| 2010-02-10 10:31:38 utc | tosch_le | kenneth: rails gets access to /_ruote/* -- example: /_ruote/xxx yields a rails routing error |
| 2010-02-10 10:31:54 utc | kennethkalmer | only because sinatra 404's |
| 2010-02-10 10:32:13 utc | kennethkalmer | if sinatra 200's it doesn't touch action_controller |
| 2010-02-10 10:32:21 utc | tosch_le | true. |
| 2010-02-10 10:32:26 utc | tosch_le | fortunately :-) |
| 2010-02-10 10:32:39 utc | kennethkalmer | :) |
| 2010-02-10 10:33:15 utc | tosch_le | ACTION wonders if there is a workaround for the annoying rspec bug |
| 2010-02-10 11:09:19 utc | tosch_le | hmm. tracked the error down to line 69 in spec/spec_helper.rb. still 16 failures left -- when in specs, rk seems to miss the workitems. sleeping longer after launching the processes doesn't help |
| 2010-02-10 11:34:35 utc | tosch_le | out for launch. ttyl. |
| 2010-02-10 11:34:41 utc | jmettraux | ciao ! |
| 2010-02-10 12:17:11 utc | anb_ | do you think it would be hard to add support for inner fields in storage_participant.by_field ? for example storage_participant('myhash.myotherhash.mykey',value) ? |
| 2010-02-10 12:17:46 utc | jmettraux | then it should work with all the storages (hash, fs, dm, couch) |
| 2010-02-10 12:18:23 utc | jmettraux | it's super naive for now, since it goes like "if it's important, then there is a top-level field for it" |
| 2010-02-10 12:18:35 utc | jmettraux | s/important/query-worth/ |
| 2010-02-10 12:19:32 utc | anb_ | yeah |
| 2010-02-10 12:19:46 utc | anb_ | maybe it's not worth it |
| 2010-02-10 12:20:33 utc | jmettraux | I understand the need though |
| 2010-02-10 12:21:36 utc | jmettraux | also, it's OK to have too much at first and then filter on the "client-side" |
| 2010-02-10 12:21:54 utc | anb_ | probably, yes |
| 2010-02-10 12:22:13 utc | jmettraux | critics/suggestions/chocolate are welcome |
| 2010-02-10 12:22:32 utc | anb_ | however I have a bunch of variables in the same container/hash that I set when starting the process and I copy to the workitems |
| 2010-02-10 12:22:51 utc | anb_ | hehe you're missing our swiss chocolate |
| 2010-02-10 12:23:01 utc | jmettraux | :] |
| 2010-02-10 12:24:53 utc | jmettraux | 3.5 years only |
| 2010-02-10 12:25:40 utc | tosch_le | ACTION is driven crazy by rspec |
| 2010-02-10 12:26:15 utc | jmettraux | tosch_le: welcome back, I'm about to commit / push the configure changes |
| 2010-02-10 12:26:42 utc | tosch_le | ACTION is back from launch (pancakes with blueberries, vanilla ice cream and apple sauce) |
| 2010-02-10 12:26:54 utc | jmettraux | argh |
| 2010-02-10 12:27:02 utc | jmettraux | sounds delicious ! |
| 2010-02-10 12:27:09 utc | tosch_le | so sorry ;-) |
| 2010-02-10 12:27:14 utc | jmettraux | :) |
| 2010-02-10 12:29:40 utc | jmettraux | tosch_le: http://github.com/jmettraux/ruote/commits/ruote2.1/ |
| 2010-02-10 12:30:39 utc | jmettraux | I moved most of the work from engine.rb to context.rb |
| 2010-02-10 12:31:20 utc | jmettraux | muchas gracias |
| 2010-02-10 12:32:04 utc | tosch_le | never mind, you did most of the work. thanks! |
| 2010-02-10 12:34:06 utc | jmettraux | anb_ : of course, nothing prevents you from refining your persistence mecha so that it supports advanced queries |
| 2010-02-10 12:35:33 utc | jmettraux | sometimes, there is the other way : a workitem references a resource (document, record, ...), you do a complex query on the resource store and once you have the ids, you look for the ruote workitems pointing to that resource |
| 2010-02-10 12:36:14 utc | jmettraux | "is that resource currently being 'workflowed', if yes, which are the processes/workitems ?" |
| 2010-02-10 12:37:28 utc | anb_ | sorry was afk |
| 2010-02-10 12:37:47 utc | jmettraux | no worries, I was thinking out loud |
| 2010-02-10 12:38:58 utc | anb_ | yes I could have a minimum of info about the resource being workflowed in the store and query somewhere else |
| 2010-02-10 12:39:15 utc | anb_ | we'll see |
| 2010-02-10 12:39:29 utc | jmettraux | tosch_le: tell me if/when you need a 2.1.7 release with the #configure |
| 2010-02-10 12:39:50 utc | anb_ | I like the simplicity of having to query against rk only |
| 2010-02-10 12:39:57 utc | jmettraux | ;) |
| 2010-02-10 12:40:02 utc | jmettraux | ok |
| 2010-02-10 12:40:26 utc | jmettraux | ACTION wanted to do a simple :) simple |
| 2010-02-10 13:23:44 utc | tosch_le | ACTION dances like a hippogriff -- he has found a workaround for the annoying rspec bug |
| 2010-02-10 13:24:02 utc | jmettraux | what is it ? |
| 2010-02-10 13:26:08 utc | tosch_le | i just undef :context. rspec seems to bind its context method (its an alias for define) to Object. so object.respond_to?(:context) returns true in the storage participant yielding epic errors... |
| 2010-02-10 13:26:54 utc | jmettraux | ok |
| 2010-02-10 13:30:08 utc | tosch_le | http://github.com/tosch/ruote-kit/commit/24bbccc1d5334567bc32be40643d158030207251#L1R3 |
| 2010-02-10 13:30:43 utc | jmettraux | great |
| 2010-02-10 13:31:16 utc | tosch_le | yeah, all tests green now. |
| 2010-02-10 13:31:50 utc | tosch_le | have a look at http://github.com/tosch/ruote-kit/commit/24bbccc1d5334567bc32be40643d158030207251#L0R109 , too. |
| 2010-02-10 13:32:22 utc | tosch_le | seems that caching the storage participant instance was a bad idea together with in memory storage |
| 2010-02-10 13:32:48 utc | tosch_le | the workitem list was just empty in the tests |
| 2010-02-10 13:33:11 utc | jmettraux | I wonder |
| 2010-02-10 13:34:00 utc | jmettraux | the 'caching' should work just fine |
| 2010-02-10 13:37:05 utc | tosch_le | it didn't. the engine itself could 'see' the workitems (ok, i could see them in @h of the attached storage instance), the worker could see them, but the storage participant instance couldn't. |
| 2010-02-10 13:37:28 utc | tosch_le | shit, should have had a look on the storage instances' object ids |
| 2010-02-10 13:37:39 utc | jmettraux | +1 |
| 2010-02-10 13:39:35 utc | tosch_le | (rdb:1) pp RuoteKit.storage_participant.context.storage.object_id |
| 2010-02-10 13:39:37 utc | tosch_le | -612440538 |
| 2010-02-10 13:39:39 utc | tosch_le | (rdb:1) pp RuoteKit.engine.context.storage.object_id |
| 2010-02-10 13:39:41 utc | tosch_le | -613077148 |
| 2010-02-10 13:39:46 utc | tosch_le | they are different |
| 2010-02-10 13:41:16 utc | jmettraux | explains it |
| 2010-02-10 13:42:38 utc | tosch_le | yeah, and i found the reason. the storage is purged after each spec example, but the storage participant instance refers to the old storage |
| 2010-02-10 13:42:55 utc | tosch_le | got the cached version working now |
| 2010-02-10 13:43:20 utc | jmettraux | excellent ! |
| 2010-02-10 13:44:16 utc | tosch_le | http://github.com/tosch/ruote-kit/commit/12aeef3cbec9abde138f3276ef01d2db91c896b0 |
| 2010-02-10 13:58:46 utc | jmettraux | excellent |
| 2010-02-10 14:45:51 utc | anb_ | this inject ruby thing is powerful ! |
| 2010-02-10 14:46:10 utc | jmettraux | :) |
| 2010-02-10 15:01:04 utc | anb_ | in Ruby , you can implement your own == for a given class, right ? because i'm trying to "uniq" a list of workitems |
| 2010-02-10 15:01:54 utc | jmettraux | def == (other) should do it |
| 2010-02-10 15:02:08 utc | jmettraux | there is also eql? and hash to watch for IIRC |
| 2010-02-10 15:02:47 utc | anb_ | I meant equals, yes |
| 2010-02-10 15:02:54 utc | jmettraux | if you need some more operators in the workitem class please tell me |
| 2010-02-10 15:04:05 utc | jmettraux | you could base unicity on the "fei" |
| 2010-02-10 15:04:16 utc | jmettraux | which implements == eql? and hash |
| 2010-02-10 15:04:45 utc | jmettraux | lib/ruote/fei.rb |
| 2010-02-10 15:05:07 utc | anb_ | maybe i'll try that, yes |
| 2010-02-10 15:05:25 utc | anb_ | I just want to remove duplicates in a search for workitems |
| 2010-02-10 15:05:31 utc | anb_ | by field / by participant |
| 2010-02-10 15:07:39 utc | jmettraux | def == (o); return false unless o.class == self.class; o.fei == self.fei; end |
| 2010-02-10 15:07:41 utc | jmettraux | should do it |
| 2010-02-10 15:08:27 utc | jmettraux | ACTION adds that to the ruote TODO |
| 2010-02-10 15:08:42 utc | anb_ | nice |
| 2010-02-10 15:11:02 utc | jmettraux | tomorrow morning |
| 2010-02-10 15:13:28 utc | anb_ | of course, no worries |
| 2010-02-10 15:16:34 utc | jmettraux | anb_: is by_field/by_participant returning duplicates or are you aggregating ? |
| 2010-02-10 15:21:02 utc | anb_ | jmettraux: i'm aggregating |
| 2010-02-10 15:42:04 utc | anb_ | bye everyone |
| 2010-02-10 15:42:10 utc | jmettraux | bye ! |
| 2010-02-10 15:49:33 utc | tosch_le | leaving, too. have a good night! |
| 2010-02-10 15:49:44 utc | jmettraux | bye ! |