fluid-work IRC Logs-2012-01-19

[09:21:30 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, I'm looking at your VideoPlayer tests from your 4545 branch. In your non-html5 test, you expect that the captionner has NOT loaded, but you still expect the captionLoader to load. Is there a reason to expect the captionLoader to be there if you don't expect to have a captionner?

[09:23:02 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: this is a translation of the old code, i didn't look very carefully into the logic in this case

[09:23:35 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, do you know why the captionner does not load in the non-html5 case?

[09:23:41 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> is that intentional?

[09:24:35 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> i don't know, but seems to me the captions should get displayed in the non-html5 case, which means captionner should be loaded

[09:24:36 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ok, yes, it is. I see the check for html5

[09:25:01 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> so cindyli, would you agree that if the code has deliberately not loaded the captionner, it makes sense to deliberately not load the captionLoader as well?

[09:25:02 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> we could check with Charly to find out if it's intentional

[09:26:25 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> i need to have a look into these 2 components first to find out what each of them is in charge of

[09:28:47 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac:

[09:28:53 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> sorry, haven't finished my typing

[09:29:03 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> cindyli, it looks to me like the captionner kind of depends on the captionLoader (i.e. the captions have to load before the captionner can work with them). I think the captionLoader should be dependent on HTML5 (at least until we get captionator and/or mediaelement), and that captionner should be dependent on captionLoader. Does that make sense?

[09:30:05 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> anastasiac: just had a quick look into the 2 components. seems to me captionner is more likely reacting to the html5, rather than captionLoader

[09:30:25 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> so it makes sense to me that captionner should not be loaded in the case of html5

[09:30:55 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> but does it make sense that if there's no captionner, then there's no need for the captionLoader?

[09:31:19 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> I doubt

[09:31:54 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> looking more into the code, captionLoader is either parsing the json or using conversion service to prepare caption

[09:33:01 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> so, we may still want this part, rather by providing another non-html5 captionner to work with it in the case of non-html5

[09:33:04 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> what do you think?

[09:34:57 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> I think that once we have captionator and/or mediaelement.js for non-html5 support of captions, this question is moot. I think that if, in the meantime, there will be no captions on non-html5 platforms, then we don't need the captionLoader.

[09:35:46 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> i agree. if we don't have a captionner for the non-html5 for the time being, there's no need to pull in captionLoader

[09:37:12 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> ok, cool. Thanks for helping me think this through, cindyli. The changes I've made to the controllers are affecting the timing of the various subcomponent creations, and I've got tests failing even though the video player is working, and if I change things so that the tests pass, the player stops working. I think the changes we've just discussed might straighten things out

[09:37:46 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> cool.

[09:37:54 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> I'll double-check with michelled, since I think this change is temporary anyway (i.e. until we get captionator/mediaelement

[09:38:05 CST(-0600)] <cindyli> ok

[11:13:00 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> michelled, cindyli, alexn: FYI, I've issued a pull request for FLUID-4546 (cleaning up the controls HTML and JS): https://github.com/fluid-project/videoPlayer/pull/12

[11:13:19 CST(-0600)] <anastasiac> I'm going to spend some time looking at dexy before returning to VideoPlayer work

[11:13:28 CST(-0600)] <michelled> sounds good anastasiac

[14:23:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Hey JonathanD, do you have a second for a quick Freenode question?

[14:24:03 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> I'm here on and off.

[14:24:08 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> Whats up?

[14:24:12 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Oh great, thanks

[14:24:25 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> A few of us have recently noticed that it's harder to connect to Freenode

[14:24:33 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We often get a message saying there are too many users connected

[14:24:46 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Usually those of us in the office who get in early in the morning are the lucky ones

[14:24:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I'm not one of them, typically

[14:25:06 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Do you know if it's something on our end, or perhaps a change in Freenode's connection policy?

[14:25:14 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Or just that you guys are getting super popular?

[14:28:04 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> ah.

[14:28:19 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> Are you sharing an IP?

[14:28:37 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> I think we're probably all behind NAT, yes

[14:28:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> huslage: Is that correct?

[14:28:56 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> That would be why, then.

[14:29:00 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> aha!

[14:29:11 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Is there anything we can do to work around that issue?

[14:29:21 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> We seem to be growing as an organization

[14:29:24 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> You can email ilines@freenode.net with the ip (or ips) involved, and a typical number of users.

[14:29:36 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Great, thanks so much!

[14:30:20 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> A brief explanation of what you do won't hurt, either.

[14:30:33 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> This comes up often enough, even just for conferences and short term stuff like that.

[14:32:50 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Okay, thanks so much, JonathanD

[14:34:37 CST(-0600)] <JonathanD> np

[15:02:35 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Bosmon: I hear there's been some serious review action going on

[15:02:41 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> sounds awesome

[15:02:57 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> Are there any pull requests we should follow along with for the commentary?

[15:07:54 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Hi colinclark - it is just the existing pull requests...

[15:07:56 CST(-0600)] <huslage> huh?

[15:07:59 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> https://github.com/fluid-project/infusion/pull/193 has received a lot of comments

[15:08:21 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> Although it is not necessarily the right pull request for most of them

[15:08:23 CST(-0600)] <huslage> colinclark: your workstations are behind a NAT. the servers have real IPs

[15:08:43 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> It received a lot because it is cumulative with a number of other branches

[15:08:52 CST(-0600)] <Bosmon> The branching network has got a bit complicated

[15:17:30 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> cool, thanks Bosmon

[15:17:43 CST(-0600)] <colinclark> and thanks huslage for the clarification