Add documentation for vertx and qute integration

[mcruzdev]

Fixes #41559

[github-actions]

🎊 PR Preview 322d112 has been successfully built and deployed to https://quarkus-pr-main-41558-preview.surge.sh/version/main/guides/

• Images of blog posts older than 3 months are not available.
• Newsletters older than 3 months are not available.

[gsmet]

Thanks for this addition. I added a few minor comments.

But that being said, I'm a bit puzzled. Why would you have io.vertx.core.json.JsonObject in your classpath, if you don't have the quarkus-vertx extension?

At least in the Quarkus world, that seems like looking for weird issues as Vert.x won't work very well if you don't use the extension.

Could you explain how you stumbled upon this issue and why you wanted to document it?

@mkouba @geoand WDYT?

[gsmet]

With io.quarkus.vertx capability

I think this part is a bit too technical. The fact that we use capabilities is internal.
Maybe With this dependency included, ...

[mkouba]

Yes, With this dependency included, is better but the "capability" here does not necessarily mean io.quarkus.deployment.Capability... I mean, it's ok to use this word with its original meaning.

[gsmet]

I think you're twisting what I'm saying :).

Using the word capability is fine. But here we are talking about io.quarkus.vertx capability which is the name of the capability (in the Quarkus meaning of it) thus too technical for me.

[mkouba]

Ah, I thought there's quarkus-vertx... ok then and sorry.

[gsmet]

BTW, talking about capabilities makes sense when in the context of extension development. So if you're targeting this (and given what you said in another comment, it might be the case), then it makes sense to talk about capabilities.

But again, probably missing some context about when you actually need this.

[mkouba]

And only keep this one (plus the example bellow) with the new wording suggested by Guillaume.

[gsmet]

Here we should use the tabs with Gradle option too. There are numerous examples in the doc (for instance in validation.adoc).

[mkouba]

And the same applies here - remove the GAV.

[mcruzdev]

And the same applies here - remove the GAV.

Why remove GAV @mkouba ?

[mkouba]

Thanks for this addition. I added a few minor comments.

But that being said, I'm a bit puzzled. Why would you have io.vertx.core.json.JsonObject in your classpath, if you don't have the quarkus-vertx extension?

At least in the Quarkus world, that seems like looking for weird issues as Vert.x won't work very well if you don't use the extension.

Could you explain how you stumbled upon this issue and why you wanted to document it?

@mkouba @geoand WDYT?

@gsmet It's a feature requested from https://github.com/quarkiverse/quarkus-roq. The idea is to add the Qute value resolver only if quarkus-vertx is on the class path. We use the same approach for quarkus-cache.

See #41390 for more information.

[gsmet]

@mkouba well, it's your component so your decision but by reading this paragraph, I'm under the impression that, as a Quarkus user, I have to do something on my side when I want to have support for JsonObject.
But, except if you are actually dealing with conditional dependencies, you actually don't need to do anything.

I think this is a bit confusing and adding complexity for something that is an advanced usage and a corner case. It's probably worth documenting it but I would clearly explain the context and when this is actually needed. Because the fact that you needed to actually explain it to me is a sign that it's easy to miss. And I'm not exactly your typical Quarkus user :).

Feel free to dismiss my review once the Vert.x typo is fixed. I might be overthinking it :).

[mcruzdev]

Thank you for all comments and considerations!

[mcruzdev]

Hi @gsmet, could you make a new review?

[github-actions]

🙈 The PR is closed and the preview is expired.

[mcruzdev]

Hi @gsmet, could you take a new review?

[quarkus-bot]

Status for workflow Quarkus Documentation CI

This is the status report for running Quarkus Documentation CI on commit 8aeaed6.

✅ The latest workflow run for the pull request has completed successfully.

It should be safe to merge provided you have a look at the other checks in the summary.