<div dir="ltr">Hello Wolfgang,<div><br></div><div>thanks for using our UnifiedPush Server! We are happy that you guys are excited about it so far.</div><div><br></div><div>The drawbacks you mention make sense, and sharing these requirements is important feedback for us.</div>
<div><br></div><div>For Feb/March we already have some refactorings on our agenda ([1]) and we also recently started looking at Keycloak for auth management (as one option).</div><div>So yes, your request seems very reasonable, and it does make sense to take a deeper look at a "plugable" system.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Thanks again for sharing this valuable feedback.</div><div><br></div><div>Greetings,</div><div>Matthias</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>[1] <a href="http://aerogear.org/docs/planning/roadmaps/UnifiedPush/">http://aerogear.org/docs/planning/roadmaps/UnifiedPush/</a></div>
<div><br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:05 PM, Wolfgang <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Wolfgang.Frank@arconsis.com" target="_blank">Wolfgang.Frank@arconsis.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hello dear aerogear dev team,<br>
<br>
a couple of weeks ago we had to integrate a PushServer for iOS and Android<br>
into our solution. We used the UPS out-of-the-box for a first prototype to<br>
figure out better the capabilities and to be able to better define the<br>
requirements in regards to push. So far we are very excited about the<br>
product!<br>
<br>
The drawback is that some piece of information like devices, users, apps as<br>
are represented in another system (i.e. MongoDB) or capabilities like<br>
authorization/authentication are already present. Thus there is some<br>
redundancy and overhead and the UPS is a little bit alien in regards to the<br>
rest of the existing architecture/infrastructure. This has pre and cons -- I<br>
know ...<br>
<br>
I thought that maybe a "simple"/exchangable mechanisms (e.g. persistence<br>
layer) of defined integration interfaces and mechanisms would be great in<br>
order to be able to better integrate the UPS in existing or already<br>
constrained system environments. This might also help in regards to<br>
scalability and flexibility of the existing design/architecture.<br>
<br>
Wondered if that would make sense in your opinion ... ?<br>
<br>
~Wolfgang<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
View this message in context: <a href="http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/Unified-Push-Server-integration-capabilities-tp5755.html" target="_blank">http://aerogear-dev.1069024.n5.nabble.com/Unified-Push-Server-integration-capabilities-tp5755.html</a><br>
Sent from the aerogear-dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
aerogear-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org">aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Matthias Wessendorf <br><br>blog: <a href="http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/" target="_blank">http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/</a><br>sessions: <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf</a><br>
twitter: <a href="http://twitter.com/mwessendorf" target="_blank">http://twitter.com/mwessendorf</a>
</div>