[aerogear-dev] Modularization and Push

[Summers Pittman]

On 04/01/2014 09:27 AM, Miguel Lemos wrote:
> Besides, that:
>
> a) Every app should have a suspend or stop notifications option;
Should yes.  It isn't part of the app.
> b) In modern Android  versions (at least from 4.0 on) you can stop 
> notifications on a app basis:
>
> http://www.talkandroid.com/guides/beginner/how-to-disable-annoying-android-notifications/

Notifications != push messages.

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Miguel Lemos <miguel21op at gmail.com 
> <mailto:miguel21op at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     ?! I can do it worse: uninstall the app because it drains the battery.
>
>
>     On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Summers Pittman
>     <supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>> wrote:
>
>         On 03/31/2014 02:03 PM, Miiguel Lemos wrote:
>         > Using the GCM for push notifications has a very important
>         advantage: it minimizes the battery consumption, since it
>         reduces the processor overload, it's not needed to open a
>         socket to check the server on a regular basis, etc. In my
>         opinion this a critical matter, minimizing the probability of
>         the user turning the notifications off.
>         On Android you can't turn notifications off in the same way as
>         iOS.
>         >
>         >
>         > Enviado do meu iPad
>         >
>         > No dia 31/03/2014, às 18:51, Bruno Oliveira
>         <bruno at abstractj.org <mailto:bruno at abstractj.org>> escreveu:
>         >
>         >> I would vote for A
>         >>
>         >> --
>         >> abstractj
>         >>
>         >> On March 31, 2014 at 10:59:01 AM, Summers Pittman
>         (supittma at redhat.com <mailto:supittma at redhat.com>) wrote:
>         >>>> Y'all,
>         >>> So there has been some concerns with the complexity of the
>         build
>         >>> especially where including the Google GCM (push) libraries
>         >>> are
>         >>> concerned. Additionally there have been some requests for a
>         >>> separate
>         >>> "push" module which won't need the full aerogear android
>         library.
>         >>>
>         >>> The full modularization of the library along with several
>         other
>         >>> improvements is scheduled for the "2.0" epic.
>         >>>
>         >>> So my question is a) Should we make a 2.0 which is only the
>         >>> modularization sooner and iterate on that a few times before
>         >>> we include
>         >>> our improvements in a 3.0 or b) Should we create a "fork"
>         project
>         >>> which
>         >>> is only a push module? This new project will get merged
>         back into
>         >>> the
>         >>> main project when we have our complete modularizations.
>         >> _______________________________________________
>         >> aerogear-dev mailing list
>         >> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>         <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>         >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>         > _______________________________________________
>         > aerogear-dev mailing list
>         > aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>         <mailto:aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org>
>         > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
>
>         --
>         Summers Pittman
>         >>Phone:404 941 4698
>         >>Java is my crack.
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         aerogear-dev mailing list
>         aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org <mailto: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


-- 
Summers Pittman
>>Phone:404 941 4698
>>Java is my crack.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20140401/8a252d65/attachment-0001.html