[aerogear-dev] Proposal to change the Java Sender Builder API

[Douglas Campos]

On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 05:45:16AM +0100, Daniel Bevenius wrote:
> +1 I think that making the application id and master secret part of the
> Sender makes sense.
> 
> Looking at the code example you posted, I was a little surprised to see
> that the SenderClient.Builder does not build a SenderClient but instead a
> JavaSender. Inspecting the code I can see that SenderClient implements
> JavaSender of course, but having to think about this just truck me as there
> might be room for improvement.
> 
> Would it be possible to move the methods declared in SenderClient that are
> missing from JavaSender into that interface?
> For example, it looks like the proxy methods and the truststore methods
> only exist in SenderClient.
> Was there a reason for leaving them out of the JavaSender interface?
> If we moved the methods up into the interface we could then make the naming
> consistent, like JavaSender and DefaultJavaSender. I'm lousy at coming up
> with class/interface names so this might be horrible but would PushSender
> be a better name for the interface?
> 
> This might be a personal preference but I much prefer using a static method
> instead when creating a new Builder instance. There is one such static
> method in SenderClient but the Builder's constructor is still public making
> the usage above valid. What I'd prefer is that the Builder's constructor be
> private and provide static methods to start the build process:
> 
> PushSender client = DefaultPushSender.withRootServerURL("
> http://aerogear.example.com/ag-push")
>                 .proxy("proxy", 8080)
>                 .proxyType(Proxy.Type.HTTP)
>                 .build();
> PushSender client =
> DefaultPushSender.withConfig("/path/on/classpath/push-config.json").build();
> PushSender client = DefaultPushSender.withConfig(inputstream).build();
+1 to the static method

> 
> Again, these might be personal preferences and others might disagree but I
> thought I'd post them just the same incase that offer different view.
> 
> /Dan
> 
> On 8 November 2014 13:59, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Currently in the Java Sender Library the pushApplicationId and the
> > masterSecret are part of the UnifiedPushMessage object. I would like to
> > move these 2 fields to the Sender object and add it to its Builder API,
> > to have something like :
> >
> > JavaSender defaultJavaSender = new SenderClient.Builder("http://localhost:8080/ag-push")
> >                 .pushApplicationId("c7fc6525-5506-4ca9-9cf1-55cc261ddb9c")
> >                 .masterSecret("8b2f43a9-23c8-44fe-bee9-d6b0af9e316b")
> >                 .build();
> >
> >
> > Why ?
> >
> >    - Regarding design, these 2 fields are more part of the sender rather
> >    than the message itself
> >    - This is a first step to externalize the configuration, so we could
> >    have later, for instance, `JavaSender defaultJavaSender = new
> >    SenderClient.Config("path.to.config(or resource stream")
> >
> > What does it change ?
> >
> >    - It only concerns the Java Sender, we do not touch the Rest Sender
> >    API here.
> >    - A Sender instance is now bounded to a particular PushApp, so if we
> >    want to send a message to another PushApp we should :
> >    -   Create a new instance of the Sender
> >    -   Expose setters to update the config.
> >
> > So , wdyt ?
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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


-- 
qmx