[aerogear-dev] [Unified Push] Java Sender API

Tue Jun 11 04:20:07 EDT 2013

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>> I start looking at the repo. I have some general questions and then
>>>> more (not that much implementation detailed ;) ) specific  proposals
>>>>
>>>> *  Is our final goal to propose an implementation that we really want
>>>> the developers to use or is it more providing a reference implementation of
>>>> the sender API and developer will most of the time implement their own ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The goal is, to give them a Java Utility to use to for sending. If they
>>> want, they can still do the HTTP by hand. Ideally we have this "client" for
>>> other platforms as well:
>>> * Node.js, Ruby, PHP etc
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> * How are we going to secure the API ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Once the endpoints are secured, we will leverage that on the client side
>>> (e.g. function to specifiy the "credentials")
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * The API looks like now "fire & forget", do we plan to change that ?
>>>>
>>> It is fire and forget.
>>>
>>>
>>>> I can imagine that people using the sender need to have some
>>>> "feedback/return value/response" to manage their flows ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, we do not really have much control there. Apple, for instance,
>>> does also not really tell you: "I could not deliver the push message to Mr.
>>> XYZ". Similar is google.
>>> They all  have "feedback" service, that's more "here is a list of
>>> invalid device tokens". This info should NEVER be returned, from our
>>> Sender-Endpoint.
>>>
>>> Other cloud providers do similar: HTTP 200 + "Thanks we got your job, it
>>> is now being processed by our system"
>>>
>>
>> I agree that we don't have control between "our" systems and
>> Google's/Apple's networks. But, between our push server and our backend
>> server, the chance is bigger that the dev has more control.
>>
>
> Not nessacarially, the PushEE could be run by the "ops department", and
> different groups, within one company just use it to send messages.
>
>
>>  The thing is that the sender api now "swallow" the http status, just
>> making the http status available for the backend app using the sender API
>> will be a nice benefit (there could be no connection between our pushee and
>> our backend app for instance) ...
>>
>
> If PushEE is not reachable, the client would fail, and will(should:))
> report that back. This like that (low level http), we should report back.
> but nothing about the actual send (the communication from PushEE ->
> PushNetworks)
>

Okay :)  "and will(should:)) report that back" was just what I wanted to
point out !

>
> -M
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> * You say one will go away, why is that ? Do we want to lean toward a
>>>> single implementation ?
>>>>
>>>
>>> For Java, I do not see a reason in supporting two "client". I did start
>>> with AsyncHttpClient and RestEasy client. I was hoping to see odds/benefits
>>> in one....
>>> Looking at the code, I think I do prefer using the RestEasy inside of
>>> our Java-Sender....
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>  We could propose different ones (and in different language, like a
>>>> vertx mod client)
>>>>
>>>
>>> of course, but that's that's outside of the "java lib" we are talking
>>> about here.  Surely, we can have a vertx-sender, node-sender etc
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, now a bit more specific :
>>>> I've been forking your repo :
>>>> https://github.com/sebastienblanc/ag-java-sender/tree/refactoring
>>>>
>>>> To factor more code and make the sender API really unit testable
>>>> (running without any server) I've moved a bit things and introduced a sort
>>>> of Client interface that will implement really the http client we will use,
>>>> this client is then injected in the sender interface.
>>>>
>>>
>>> that is nice. The project is simple now, and was written while I was
>>> hacking the sender endpoints - that way I could avoid sending lot's of
>>> CURLs ;-)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> With Arquillian should be easy to add real integration tests.
>>>>
>>>
>>> sounds good
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's discuss !
>>>> Sebi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> a FIRST version of the Java Sender API is ready:
>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender
>>>>>
>>>>> Two implementations, based on different Java HTTP clients:
>>>>> * RestEasy:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/aerogear/unifiedpush/resteasy/RestEasyJavaSender.java
>>>>> * AsyncHttpClient:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/aerogear/unifiedpush/async/AsyncJavaSender.java
>>>>>
>>>>> One will go away, time will tell... not important now...
>>>>>
>>>>> Tests:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/tree/master/src/test/java/org/aerogear/unifiedpush
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More functionality (e.g. selective send for deviceType, MobileVariant)
>>>>> will follow, hand in hand with the matching endpoints
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -Matthias
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matthias Wessendorf
>
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20130611/ebfe69e6/attachment.html 