[
09:02am
]
balunasj
:
Lets give a couple more i others for others to join, we are going to start today with the queue - http://community.jboss.org/wiki/RichFaces40ALPHA2QueueStatus
[
09:03am
]
prabhat joined the chat room.
[
09:04am
]
balunasj
:
We are going to be meeting about 4.0 until our team meeting in about 2 hours.
[
09:06am
]
•
balunasj
 
something seems to be wrong with my corporate mail - so if anyone has sent anything to me - I'll get back asap
[
09:06am
]
balunasj
:
ok so lets get started with the queue discussion
[
09:06am
]
balunasj
:
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/RichFaces40ALPHA2QueueStatus
[
09:06am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: could you get us started for this topic?
[
09:07am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: I guess Pavel is better to start
[
09:07am
]
nbelaevski
:
pyaschenko: can you please go on with the queue status?
[
09:07am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: sorry I assumed you because of the updates to the status page
[
09:08am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: we did this together
[
09:08am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: ok np
[
09:09am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: Client side code 90% completed. Should be added queue listeners and a few small fixes
[
09:10am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: ok
[
09:10am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: also we need to cover client-side code with unit tests
[
09:10am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: yes
[
09:10am
]
balunasj
:
+1
[
09:11am
]
pyaschenko
:
nbelaevski: what about multiple queues, you suggested to do it
[
09:11am
]
nbelaevski
:
one more question on this is whether we are going to change queue client-side behavior in 4.0.x
[
09:11am
]
balunasj
:
From the status there seems to be a lot of work left for server side component correct?
[
09:12am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: not much really
[
09:12am
]
balunasj
:
Are these points part of the features you wanted to discuss - from the status?
[
09:13am
]
balunasj
:
one note -  I think that this page need to be broken up into 3.3.X queue, and 4.0
[
09:13am
]
balunasj
:
http://community.jboss.org/wiki/DesignofRichFacesa4jqueue
[
09:13am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: yes, we need to finish with this discussion
[
09:13am
]
balunasj
:
is is confusing to look at and follow.
[
09:13am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: ok I agree we should discuss the features and see where they fit in.
[
09:14am
]
nbelaevski
:
this is also a new feature; Support for standard form submits as well as AJAX request: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/RF-7492
[
09:14am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: can you create an RFPL jira to separate out the above wiki page into 3.3.X and 4.0 topics.
[
09:14am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: looking...
[
09:14am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: yes I saw that one on the forums
[
09:14am
]
balunasj
:
I think that is important
[
09:15am
]
balunasj
:
we can have queued requests that fire after a form is submitted
[
09:15am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
balunasj, B.t.w. I already mentioned this as a requirement for A2 in common components implementation page (about separate wiki for 4.x queue)
[
09:15am
]
balunasj
:
ilya_shaikovsky: thanks for that
[
09:15am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: ok
[
09:16am
]
balunasj
:
would this require the a4j:form for could users use the regular form?
[
09:16am
]
nbelaevski
:
pyaschenko: we need to estimate this feature
[
09:16am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: agreed
[
09:17am
]
balunasj
:
I think discussing some of the details of the feature might be needed to estimate
[
09:17am
]
balunasj
:
like - how are view, and named queues effected
[
09:17am
]
balunasj
:
how can you associate a form with a queue
[
09:17am
]
balunasj
:
a4j:form vs form
[
09:17am
]
balunasj
:
etc...
[
09:18am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: yes, this all are the changes to discuss as part of 4.x migration
[
09:18am
]
LexD joined the chat room.
[
09:18am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: not sure I'm following - you want to wait for the migration part of the meetings?
[
09:19am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: or have a separate meeting to discuss
[
09:19am
]
balunasj
:
Hi LexD
[
09:19am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: please let me clarify - we need to update queue requirements according to how JSF 2.0 std. queue works
[
09:20am
]
LexD
:
Hello
[
09:20am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: ok - yes I agree  
[
09:20am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: currently we have an implementation that supports features existing in 3.3.x and it's built over JSF 2.0 AJAX script
[
09:20am
]
balunasj
:
ok
[
09:21am
]
nbelaevski
:
LexD: hello
[
09:21am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: it seems we are not ready to discuss the necessary changes right now. at least we need to update design wiki page
[
09:22am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: ok - I agree - I would like to be able to review
[
09:22am
]
balunasj
:
an updated wiki with 4.0 specific features and plans so we discuss with more knowledge
[
09:23am
]
balunasj
:
Please add that as a near term task, and we'll revisit next week.
[
09:24am
]
balunasj
:
besides RF-7492
[
09:24am
]
balunasj
:
what other features or updates did you want to discuss?
[
09:24am
]
•
balunasj
 
looking at 4.0 RFP section....
[
09:27am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: https://jira.jboss.org/jira/browse/RFPL-343
[
09:27am
]
balunasj
:
lets discuss multiple queues - the one pyaschenko mentioned above
[
09:27am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: looking...
[
09:27am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: awesome thanks
[
09:28am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
thanks thought that this link to some new feature
[
09:28am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
[
09:28am
]
lightguard_jp joined the chat room.
[
09:29am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
one more question related to queue
[
09:29am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
need to be considered as it related to estimations
[
09:31am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
logical queues - two options 1) a4j:queue - just placeholder for queue settings and passes the request to some common queue with its parameters so not a real queue 2) a4j:queue real logical queue which passes the event only when delays, grouping and so one considered.. So 2) already there and the 1) will require additional work
[
09:32am
]
nbelaevski
:
I'm not completely sure about 2) already there
[
09:32am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
we not finished with the decision at prev meeting
[
09:32am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
oh sorry
[
09:32am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
nbelaevski, thanks
[
09:32am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
1) already there
[
09:33am
]
balunasj
:
In the first case 1)
[
09:33am
]
balunasj
:
It is the events themselves that have the settings and properties and callbacks correct?
[
09:34am
]
balunasj
:
these will feed into a single common RF queue, or directly into JSF 2 queue - if JSF queue - how will be process settings at that point?
[
09:34am
]
nbelaevski
:
single common RF queue as we are introducing behavior missing in JSF2 queue
[
09:34am
]
nbelaevski
:
like similar events colection
[
09:35am
]
balunasj
:
ok
[
09:35am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
yup just can't type so fast as nbelaevski,\
[
09:35am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
[
09:35am
]
balunasj
:
so if that is the case - when users interact with client side API
[
09:36am
]
balunasj
:
will they be able to retrieve all events from a virtual logical queue, or have to sift through al elements?
[
09:36am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
as I see it - queue is just params holder so not.. but in general maybe we could add some type according to queue and return the events with some api for the concrete queue
[
09:37am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
pyaschenko, how about this? seems could be done?
[
09:37am
]
balunasj
:
agreed - even if we just a method like queue.getEvents("name");
[
09:37am
]
balunasj
:
to make it easier for the user to tell.
[
09:38am
]
balunasj
:
in the end we may not want users to even know these are a single queue ( except for the JSF 2 queue ).
[
09:40am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: nbelaevski : thoughts?
[
09:42am
]
nbelaevski
:
pyaschenko: can you please review API for both variants and add it to the wiki page?
[
09:43am
]
pyaschenko
:
nbelaevski: ok
[
09:43am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
nbelaevski, we will discuss together with pasha durong single doc creation
[
09:43am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: pyaschenko: we can add very comprehensive API however it is desireable to keep it simple
[
09:43am
]
ilya_shaikovsky
:
during
[
09:44am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: pyaschenko: that's what I think
[
09:44am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: I there is a balance - I would not want to see ton's of methods, but utilility methods like this seem ok.
[
09:44am
]
nbelaevski
:
ilya_shaikovsky: ok, some thoughts on it are already there in wiki document
[
09:45am
]
balunasj
:
We also need to be careful about what we plan for A2
[
09:45am
]
balunasj
:
and what gets pushed.
[
09:45am
]
balunasj
:
methods like this or some of the other features may need to be deferred
[
09:46am
]
balunasj
:
I have a feeling most of the A2 schedule is going to be based on table and assembly - then other parts will need to adjust to fit that.
[
09:46am
]
balunasj
:
we'll discuss more during the assembly meeting, but after
[
09:47am
]
balunasj
:
A2 we are going to plan on regular Beta releases in a time-box manor.
[
09:47am
]
balunasj
:
so features can slip as needed.
[
09:47am
]
balunasj
:
anyway - off track sorry.
[
09:47am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: ok, CS API is of low priority for A2
[
09:47am
]
lfryc left the chat room. ("Leaving")
[
09:47am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: especially taken into consideration Pavel's activities for client library
[
09:48am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: advanced features/API are for sure.
[
09:48am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: yes
[
09:48am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: if there are a minimum basic methods there that is great.
[
09:48am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: i.e. if any other code depends on it for A2 - but I don't think that is likely
[
09:49am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: agree
[
09:49am
]
balunasj
:
I'm a bit concerned about the estimates for the queue - I think we should plan to review in more details once the wiki is updated. 
[
09:49am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: main usage of this API was for demo
[
09:49am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: in 3.3.x
[
09:49am
]
balunasj
:
But I think that should be next week if possible.
[
09:49am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: yup - makes sense
[
09:50am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: I would like the queue to be part of the component gallery demo for A2 so some basic API will be needed.
[
09:50am
]
balunasj
:
nbelaevski: but if we need to skip it - we can remember this is an ALPHA
[
09:50am
]
nbelaevski
:
balunasj: ok
[
09:50am
]
balunasj
:
although a fairly advanced on
[
09:51am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: do you think you'll have time to update wiki and design concepts and estimates for a queue meeting next week?
[
09:51am
]
balunasj
:
could be later in the week if needed.
[
09:52am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: Ok, I and Ilya will update wiki
[
09:52am
]
balunasj
:
pyaschenko: so you guys will work together on this?
[
09:53am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: yes
[
09:53am
]
balunasj
:
ok
[
09:53am
]
balunasj
:
what else is needed to be discussed queue's prior to updating design and wiki
[
09:53am
]
balunasj
:
?
[
09:54am
]
balunasj
:
other high level feature discussions from above?
[
09:54am
]
balunasj
:
or others?
[
09:56am
]
balunasj
:
if not then lets take a break for 5 min
[
09:56am
]
balunasj
:
and when we get back we'll talk about migration process and any other component topics
[
09:57am
]
pyaschenko
:
balunasj: no questions anymore
[
09:58am
]
balunasj
:
ok guys then lets meet back here in 5-10 min