2011-06-22 06:52:08 utc |
biv |
hey jmettraux - you there? |
2011-06-22 06:52:16 utc |
jmettraux |
biv: hello, yes |
2011-06-22 06:52:32 utc |
biv |
I'm thinking of trying to upgrade our ruote code to the latest ver |
2011-06-22 06:52:50 utc |
jmettraux |
last time you had a json issue, iirc |
2011-06-22 06:52:51 utc |
biv |
I remember that the old DSL kept breaking though. Do you think now is a good time to try? |
2011-06-22 06:53:06 utc |
biv |
hrm, I can't remember exactly what it was. I was quite rushed |
2011-06-22 06:53:19 utc |
biv |
is it the case the old process definitions should work? |
2011-06-22 06:53:24 utc |
jmettraux |
ok, let's try |
2011-06-22 06:53:54 utc |
biv |
well, it might not be that hard for me to rewrite the process defs I already have |
2011-06-22 06:54:07 utc |
biv |
just trying to get a feel from you on what you think is the easiest route |
2011-06-22 06:54:48 utc |
jmettraux |
they shouldn't break, I kept the newer versions compatible |
2011-06-22 06:55:02 utc |
biv |
ok, sounds pretty easy, I'll just pull down ruote master then |
2011-06-22 06:55:12 utc |
jmettraux |
great |
2011-06-22 06:58:50 utc |
biv |
yup, have hit a syntax like error: |
2011-06-22 06:59:23 utc |
biv |
https://gist.github.com/1039617 |
2011-06-22 07:00:42 utc |
jmettraux |
ok, this is not a syntax error, it's the security check telling that your participant implementation is touching the File constant |
2011-06-22 07:01:07 utc |
jmettraux |
let me dig up the "security unlocking" thing I passed you the other day |
2011-06-22 07:01:15 utc |
biv |
k |
2011-06-22 07:01:20 utc |
biv |
I might have it here already |
2011-06-22 07:01:21 utc |
biv |
ACTION looks |
2011-06-22 07:02:05 utc |
jmettraux |
when instantiating the storage, you have to pass 'user_ruby_treechecker' => false |
2011-06-22 07:02:33 utc |
jmettraux |
(or you port your participants from blocks to classes) |
2011-06-22 07:02:43 utc |
biv |
k |
2011-06-22 07:03:04 utc |
biv |
Ill start with the first option, but I'd like to move to the second |
2011-06-22 07:03:46 utc |
biv |
@storage = Ruote::FsStorage.new("/tmp/nesstar/ruote/", 'user_ruby_treechecker' => false) didn't seem to do it |
2011-06-22 07:03:54 utc |
biv |
sorry, i remember we went through this last tme |
2011-06-22 07:04:01 utc |
jmettraux |
ouch, sorry |
2011-06-22 07:04:10 utc |
jmettraux |
'use_ruby_treechecker' => false |
2011-06-22 07:04:48 utc |
biv |
hrm, how do I communicate that to the storage? |
2011-06-22 07:05:44 utc |
jmettraux |
@storage = Ruote::FsStorage.new("/tmp/nesstar/ruote/", 'use_ruby_treechecker' => false) |
2011-06-22 07:05:56 utc |
jmettraux |
user --> user |
2011-06-22 07:06:01 utc |
jmettraux |
user --> use |
2011-06-22 07:06:03 utc |
jmettraux |
sorry my fault |
2011-06-22 07:06:04 utc |
biv |
gotcha |
2011-06-22 07:06:42 utc |
biv |
hrm, still the same error |
2011-06-22 07:07:32 utc |
jmettraux |
ok, let me try something |
2011-06-22 07:09:44 utc |
jmettraux |
ah, yes, you're right |
2011-06-22 07:10:26 utc |
jmettraux |
https://gist.github.com/1039626 |
2011-06-22 07:10:58 utc |
biv |
k |
2011-06-22 07:12:06 utc |
jmettraux |
my bad |
2011-06-22 07:12:28 utc |
jmettraux |
we went through the same scenario back then |
2011-06-22 07:12:37 utc |
biv |
ACTION nods |
2011-06-22 07:12:45 utc |
biv |
no worries - just let me play with this a bt |
2011-06-22 07:12:46 utc |
biv |
bit |
2011-06-22 07:12:48 utc |
jmettraux |
give me 5 minutes to fix that in the medium term |
2011-06-22 07:16:39 utc |
biv |
cool that appears to hvae worked |
2011-06-22 07:16:46 utc |
biv |
no, that's fine, I can live with that |
2011-06-22 07:17:15 utc |
biv |
ok, so now I can work with the latest ruote, I wonder if the multithreading requires first problem still exists |
2011-06-22 07:17:22 utc |
biv |
ACTION adds more threads to his threadpool |
2011-06-22 07:19:06 utc |
jmettraux |
I don't remember enough to answer :) |
2011-06-22 07:19:31 utc |
jmettraux |
ok, got the fix, now running the tests |
2011-06-22 07:21:19 utc |
biv |
:) |
2011-06-22 07:21:26 utc |
biv |
hrm, the server Im supposed to integrate with is timing out |
2011-06-22 07:21:30 utc |
biv |
haha |
2011-06-22 07:21:33 utc |
biv |
that helps |
2011-06-22 07:23:01 utc |
jmettraux |
an immediate workaround for you would be to nuke the configurations/ne/engine.json file and retry |
2011-06-22 07:23:34 utc |
biv |
right |
2011-06-22 07:23:38 utc |
biv |
well, at least I have it upgraded |
2011-06-22 07:23:41 utc |
biv |
so that's a good start |
2011-06-22 07:24:03 utc |
jmettraux |
groumpf, my fix broke something somewhere else, looking into it |
2011-06-22 07:39:04 utc |
jmettraux |
tosch_le: hello, I added the Gemfile.lock to ruote-kit |
2011-06-22 07:39:30 utc |
tosch_le |
hello! |
2011-06-22 07:39:40 utc |
tosch_le |
jmettraux: great! many thanks. |
2011-06-22 07:40:11 utc |
jmettraux |
:) |
2011-06-22 08:10:54 utc |
jmettraux |
biv: I just pushed a fix for fs_storage to ruote master, I will port the fix to other storage implementations later in the evening |
2011-06-22 08:16:59 utc |
biv |
cheers dude |
2011-06-22 08:17:01 utc |
biv |
ok, Im out |
2011-06-22 08:17:05 utc |
biv |
have to switch off :) |
2011-06-22 08:17:09 utc |
jmettraux |
ciao ! |
2011-06-22 08:17:10 utc |
biv |
thanks for your help |
2011-06-22 09:20:54 utc |
MCamou |
hi everyone |
2011-06-22 09:21:23 utc |
MCamou |
could someone give me a hand with ruote-amqp? |
2011-06-22 09:23:18 utc |
jmettraux |
MCamou: hello |
2011-06-22 09:23:26 utc |
MCamou |
Hi John |
2011-06-22 09:23:37 utc |
jmettraux |
next time you have no answer, please try the mailing list |
2011-06-22 09:24:06 utc |
MCamou |
yeah, I got bogged in stuff :) |
2011-06-22 09:24:07 utc |
jmettraux |
I will try my best, but my amqp experience is limited to maintaining ruote-amqp |
2011-06-22 09:24:23 utc |
MCamou |
thanks |
2011-06-22 09:24:33 utc |
jmettraux |
you might have more chance on the mailing list |
2011-06-22 09:25:00 utc |
MCamou |
hmm…good point |
2011-06-22 09:25:06 utc |
MCamou |
I'll try the list |
2011-06-22 09:26:00 utc |
jmettraux |
no worries, ask first here |
2011-06-22 09:26:08 utc |
MCamou |
thanks! |
2011-06-22 10:10:36 utc |
MCamou |
OK…sent to the list |
2011-06-22 10:11:33 utc |
jmettraux |
if I can reply, I will, else I will have to let it pass, let's hope the amqp crowd is listening |
2011-06-22 10:33:38 utc |
jmettraux |
MCamou: your gut feeling is that we should handle gracefully "nil" messages ? |
2011-06-22 10:41:08 utc |
MCamou |
as far as nil's are concerned, we should probably filter them out before doing a q.publish |
2011-06-22 10:41:38 utc |
MCamou |
but I am also concerned that there are cases when AMQP stops responding without warning |
2011-06-22 10:42:15 utc |
MCamou |
I wonder if this is a ruby-amqp bug |
2011-06-22 10:42:34 utc |
jmettraux |
so far the people using ruote-amqp in production haven't complained |
2011-06-22 10:42:58 utc |
MCamou |
But I assume that if we send in a bug report the first response would be to upgrade to 0.8 |
2011-06-22 10:43:16 utc |
MCamou |
hmmmm….so perhaps this is the only case |
2011-06-22 10:43:27 utc |
MCamou |
or perhaps what we're doing is so weird that we hit on a corner case :) |
2011-06-22 10:49:31 utc |
jmettraux |
ouch |
2011-06-22 10:52:30 utc |
jmettraux |
now I remember the amqp 0.8.0 pain http://groups.google.com/group/openwferu-users/browse_thread/thread/f7a8138e987867a3 |
2011-06-22 11:06:08 utc |
MCamou |
ah yes… I remember that exchange |
2011-06-22 11:08:15 utc |
jmettraux |
I've pinged Kenneth about your email, if no one answers by tomorrow, I will try myself |
2011-06-22 11:09:11 utc |
MCamou |
thanks! |
2011-06-22 15:57:04 utc |
MCamou |
hi again |
2011-06-22 15:57:08 utc |
MCamou |
quick question |
2011-06-22 15:58:42 utc |
MCamou |
I have a participant/receiver combination. The Participant doesn't call reply_to_engine in consume(), it just registers the workitem in an in-memory Hash and returns. The Receiver looks up the workitem in the Hash when it gets a message and does the Reply |
2011-06-22 15:58:55 utc |
MCamou |
(these actually extend the RuoteAMQP ParticipantProxy/Receiver) |
2011-06-22 15:59:23 utc |
kitplummer |
what's the question? :) |
2011-06-22 15:59:31 utc |
MCamou |
my question is, what happens if Ruote goes down after the execution of the Participant but before the Receiver gets the message? |
2011-06-22 16:00:00 utc |
MCamou |
will the workitem be persisted (so I should probably persist the Hash too) or not? |
2011-06-22 16:00:16 utc |
MCamou |
in my use case I think it makes more sense for it NOT to be persisted |
2011-06-22 16:01:39 utc |
MCamou |
(before when I was talking of the Receiver, I should have said it does a RECEIVE instead of a reply) |