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

Tue Jun 11 08:18:23 EDT 2013

Okay now that we agreed that the client should report in case of failure, I
would like to submit a PR for that, throwing a exception is what we want
here no ? Custom exception JavaSenderException of smt similar ?

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:24 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>wrote:

>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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 !
>>
>
>
> Ah, - OK.
>
>
>
>>
>>> -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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/c9079ece/attachment-0001.html 