[aerogear-dev] GCM 3.0 and Instance ID

[Daniel Passos]

+1 Anyway UPS add a key (in the future release) to identify the message
come from UPS is also a good idea

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:35 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> if #3 is possible (check&ignore the ack backed into the library) I would
>>> go for this option as well.
>>>
>> The ACK is mostly ignored now.  There is a log message saying that the
>> GCM handler couldn't process it but otherwise the application is
>> unaffected.
>>
>
> perfect, so #3 it is? :)
>
> So a bit of delay on 2.2.0, a little release note of no support of GCM 3
> and afterwards do that in 2.2.1 (or 2.3.0) ?
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew at apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma at redhat.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Sooooo we have a 2.2.0 staged.  Google has a ton of new functionality
>>>>> rolling out for GCM.
>>>>>
>>>>> We think that 2.2.0 works with it mostly correctly but we are finding
>>>>> some "gotchas".  Notably it looks like Google is sending some ACK messages
>>>>> after we register that the library is ignoring.
>>>>>
>>>>> We will need to support InstanceID (tl;dr; Google is enhancing
>>>>> registraiton_id).  Passos and I are still digesting the volumes of stuff
>>>>> being rolled out from IO so we can't really give too many details right now
>>>>> because we simply don't know them (And Google is still updating their docs,
>>>>> fixing links, etc).
>>>>>
>>>>> So the question to the list is :
>>>>>  Do we delay 2.2.0 and include support for InstanceID and any other
>>>>> best practices Google has introduced or do we release 2.2.0, document /
>>>>> work around any gotchas and then prioritize GCM 3.0 support for 2.3.0?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (assuming this is related to the NPE I am seeing in [1])
>>>>
>>>> I think the ultimate goal for 2.2.0 should be to to not crash like in
>>>> [1].
>>>>
>>>> I see three options:
>>>> 1) document the work-around ([2]) and release the _existing_ 2.2.0, as
>>>> is
>>>> -> The fact that the work-around needs to be added to (almost) all
>>>> apps, makes it an odd work-around (not saying it's a no-go)
>>>> 2) delay the 2.2.0 and get full GCM 3.0 support in there
>>>> -> IMO it's unknown how long that takes, and ideally our 2.2.0
>>>> AGDroid-Push should be out once we have the UPS released (early July); This
>>>> also could mean a delay on our Cordova lib.
>>>> 3) Update 2.2.0 to ignore the ACK sent from GCM 3.0, and get a 2.2.x
>>>> (or 2.3.0) a bit later for full support on GCM 3.0
>>>> -> IMO this allows us to release UPS 1.1.0 (and AGDroid-Push) in a
>>>> reasonable timeframe and moves the work-around into our library, and not
>>>> onto all the app developers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> My vote would be going w/ option #3, given the above reasoning and the
>>>> fact that we don't use any GCM 3.0 feature atm, it sounds fairly safe (at
>>>> least to me) doing the working inside of our library
>>>>
>>>> -Matthias
>>>>
>>>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGDROID-425
>>>> [2]
>>>> https://github.com/jboss-mobile/unified-push-helloworld/commit/077bfdce8980f86fde1662b490139573792c82fc
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>



-- 
-- Passos
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.jboss.org/pipermail/aerogear-dev/attachments/20150617/834489f2/attachment-0001.html