[AGPUSH-124] Aerodoc, change in the REST API url, please check
by Sebastien Blanc
Hi,
While working on AGPUSH-124, which consist in removing the ag-controller
bits from aerodoc, I had to change the REST URL because basically in
JAX-RS it's not possible to serve static resource (HTML, JS) and serve rest
resource if it's used in the same context/path.
So, it's not that big deal but the clients (ios, android, web) using the
aerodoc backend will have to change their REST url which consist in
prefixing all the existing services with /rest/
The readme and the cURL samples in the PR has been updated to reflect that.
The PR can be found here PR
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-push-quickstart-backend/pull/15
Thx !
Seb
10 years, 10 months
SimplePush Updates
by Kris Borchers
So I saw this article this evening and noticed a couple of things different from what we are doing. I intend to file a number of JIRAs tomorrow but wanted to fire this off for anyone interested to take a look. This is an amazing writeup of everything SimplePush on FFOS.
https://hacks.mozilla.org/2013/07/dont-miss-out-on-the-real-time-fun-use-...
A couple things I noticed at first glance:
navigator.push.registrations() - provides a list of current registrations. Currently this is implemented more behind the scenes in that we automatically reregister any existing channels and use them as needed. They don't actually say how to use that list though
The talk about checking for push support but we are making that unnecessary. ;
Most of the rest of it is just useful information for both the client and server.
10 years, 10 months
AeroGear Security 1.2.0 released
by Bruno Oliveira
Good morning,
AeroGear Security 1.2.0 was released on Maven Central:
<dependency>
<groupId>org.jboss.aerogear</groupId>
<artifactId>aerogear-security</artifactId>
<version>1.2.0</version>
</dependency>
Changelog:
* Merge branch 'AGSEC-87'
* Code clean up
* Bump up to the correct snapshot version
* PKCS12 certificate validation utility
You probably already received my PR to update it and also our instance
of controller-demo on OpenShift was updated. If you find any problem,
let me know.
ps: I'm looking for volunteers to update the TODO app
(https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AEROGEAR-1284)
-
--
abstractj
10 years, 10 months
[SimplePush] Registration with the UnifiedPush
by Matthias Wessendorf
Hi,
in the message spec discussions, a while ago, we agreed that for
"triggering" notifications for registered SimplePush clients, the
"deviceType" needs to match "web" (see [1] for the spec).
Right now, only a few "metadata" items are submitted to the UnifiedPush
Server, using the "registerWithPushServer" (perhaps we should rename it ?):
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/Notifier/src/unified-push/ae...
However, I have already filed a ticket for that (see [2]), since on Cordova
(and similar things) a bit more "metadata" would be nice (since they are
really treated as "native" clients, with APNs/GCM setup on the UP server
etc)
Now... talking about metadata (including the "deviceType"). The above
statement, that the "deviceType" needs to match "web" for SimplePush
clients leads to a question:
* Do we want to have ALL SimplePush clients auto-submit the
"deviceType":"web", or not ?
If NOT, I guess that means there will be NO deviceType for SimplePush
clients, on the UnifiedPush server, which is fine.
But once more metadata is possible (e.g. after AGJS-56), I think we than
need to ensure that a SP client does not set it's deviceType to something
like "winBROwsPhone" :)
-Matthias
[1]
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-...
[2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGJS-56
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
10 years, 10 months
aerogear-unified-push java client pre-release check
by Douglas Campos
I was doing a pre-release review and found out the artifact is called
java-sender, and consequently this would be named like this
GAV: org.jboss.aerogear.unifiedpush:java-sender:0.1.0
is this the expected naming?
I'd like to propose to change this before we release to java-client or
unified-push-java-client.
Thoughts?
--
qmx
10 years, 10 months
