?????? Regarding to java-chassis Resonse is failed logic

Sorry, your reply is not related to my problem. For your problem, java-chassis have same mechanism, ExceptionConverter is supported. My problem related to internal error processing and I think it's a bug, but the solution may have two ways. I'll create a PR for this to better understand this

Re: Regarding to java-chassis Resonse is failed logic

It could cause some security issue if we just through the exception back to the client. In JAXRS there are exception mapping mechanism[1], maybe we can consider add this kind of feature here. [1]https://docs.oracle.com/javaee/7/api/javax/ws/rs/ext/ExceptionMapper.html Willem Jiang Twitter:

Regarding to java-chassis Resonse is failed logic

Currently we support the following interface definition, but there are some problem in handler. When error code is 400 or 500, handler taking this error code as error, and will throw exception. For example using bizkeeper handler we have this code. This code will give a cast case exeception

Re: Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

>From the Spring Boot2 migration guide[1], the class package and name was changed. We may need to create different module to handle the class package change issue. [1] https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-boot/wiki/Spring-Boot-2.0-Migration-Guide#embedded-containers-package-structure

?????? Discussion about java chassis roadmap

Agree with this order. And SCB-748 SCB-756 is related, should take most priority. -- -- ??: "wjm wjm"; : 2018??7??19??(??) 4:29 ??: "dev"; : Re: Discussion about java chassis roadmap Sort by importance: [SCB-748

?????? [DISCUSS] Service-Center Docker images version numbering

+1 For daily build, we only test against released server center for java-chassis, e.g. 1.0.0.m2. We can test lastest version or other to check compatibility before release new version or weeks a day. -- -- ??: "willem.jiang"; :

?????? [DISCUSS]Simplify Dynamic Config (Apollo) Integration Test inJava Chassis

+1 for mock this API. If we can have some good test env, to preinstall third parties and service center to boot up testing is great prefereed. -- -- ??: "willem.jiang"; : 2018??7??19??(??) 4:47 ??: "dev"; : Re:

?????? Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

I agree to support Spring Boot 2. The only thing is that we need first work on it and find any potential problem need to be addressed. Anyone want have a try? -- -- ??: "willem.jiang"; : 2018??7??20??(??) 10:50 ??: "dev"; :

Re: Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

It think we can update our bean.xml file for 4.0.xsd. If I remember right the spring namespace handler can take care of mapping http url to classpath. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:36 AM, wjm wjm wrote: > about "

?????? [DISCUSS]Shall Java Chassis support random port

For security reasons, we should listen as less network interface as possible. So we make this design to listen only one network address. For users want this feature, it's really save a lot of time for them to configure ip address. I remember this is the original security reasons for 0.0.0.0 to

Re: Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

about " classpath:org/springframework/beans/factory/xml/spring- beans-3.0.xsd" if changed to http://., and if net disconnected, then process will blocked when booting this already happened many times in our environment and customer's environment we need to make a decision of this.

Re:Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

I tried to upgrade Java-Chassis to support SpringBoot2 before, but failed. There are two problems. The first one is in our bean.xml file， the xsd file is imported like below: ``` classpath:org/springframework/beans/factory/xml/spring-beans-3.0.xsd ``` but 3.0 version xsd file does not exist

Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

not enough, must exclude old spring also 2018-07-20 6:44 GMT+08:00 Willem Jiang : > How about let user override the version of Spring Boot in their application > and give it a try. > Just like what we do with JDK9 here[1] > If there is any issue comes out, we can keep digging it. > >

Re: [DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

How about let user override the version of Spring Boot in their application and give it a try. Just like what we do with JDK9 here[1] If there is any issue comes out, we can keep digging it. [1]https://github.com/apache/incubator-servicecomb-saga/issues/76 Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang

[DISCUSS]Shall we upgrade Java-chassis to support Spring Boot2

Hi, Java-chassis currently supports Spirng Boot 1.5.12 version. In fact, some enterprise users develop their coursewares based on Spring Boot2, so hopefully Java-chassis can support Spring Boot2, such as Chuanzhi Boke. I think it's neccessary to discuss the plan about upgrading

Re: [DISCUSS] Service-Center Docker images version numbering

i think we can new a integrated test job per day and this test can use the latest sc image version, and reuse the java chassis test cases. Then sc and chassis test cases can be maintained together iPhone -- Original -- From: Willem Jiang Date: Thu,Jul

Re: [DISCUSS]Simplify Dynamic Config (Apollo) Integration Test in Java Chassis

That's problem of Apollo. We may need to find if there are any other open source configuration server can do the do too. >From the test point of view, we just need to make sure the API is OK. I'm +1 for mocking the Apollo API in our test. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On

Re: [DISCUSS] Service-Center Docker images version numbering

For the system test and integration test, it could be good the ServiceCenter is stable. So we may not use the latest version in the Java-Chassis system tests. If we want to check the service-center compatible, we can start a CI with some basic test per day. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang

Re: Discussion about java chassis roadmap

Sort by importance: [SCB-748 ] ServiceComb engine resource optimize [SCB-756 ] improve development phase flexibility [SCB-719 ] automated integration

Re: Discussion about java chassis roadmap

Sort by importance: [SCB-748 ] ServiceComb engine resource optimize [SCB-756 ] improve development phase flexibility [SCB-719 ] automated integration

Re: Discussion about java chassis roadmap

infact all of them are very very big task once we decided to start them, we must create subtasks. now, we just need to decide what tasks will be start? 2018-07-19 15:44 GMT+08:00 Willem Jiang : > Yeah, as we are heading to ServiceComb 1.0.0. It's the time for us to make > some plan for the new

Re: Discussion about java chassis roadmap

Yeah, as we are heading to ServiceComb 1.0.0. It's the time for us to make some plan for the new release. Jimin, I think 719 and 758 are very big task, I think we may need to create some small tasks to break down them a bit. Willem Jiang Twitter: willemjiang Weibo: 姜宁willem On Thu, Jul 19,