Re: [aerogear-dev] Firefox Push API with UnifiedPush Server

Can't we just name the variant a "WebPush", with a special field for the > user to provide info, WHAT provider will be used? e.g. on that WebPush > Variant; TYPE: Firefox ? Provider should be defined for each Installation (device/client/endpoint), not for the whole Variant. Best regards, Idel Pivnitskiy -- Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > Can't we just name the variant a "WebPush", with a special field for the > user to provide info, WHAT provider will be used? e.g. on that WebPush > Variant; TYPE: Firefox ? > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:15 AM, Idel Pivnitskiy < > idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> I've sent a separate PR with renamed Firefox Variant to Webpush Variant >> [1]. Will try to make it workable with Google Chrome and FCM too tomorrow. >> >> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/745 >> >> Best regards, >> Idel Pivnitskiy >> -- >> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >> >> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 5:21 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> It's a bit early to talk about Safari, because it has not implemented >>> Push API, Service Worker API and push message encryption yet. And no >>> information about their plans to do this. Currently Apple uses their own >>> protocol for push notifications. I've asked my friend to register a test >>> app from his Apple developer's account for me, and I'm going to test how it >>> will work now, with APNs Variant. >>> >>> Here is info, that Microsoft started development of Push API for Edge >>> [1]. >>> >>> I decided to create a variant for Firefox just because variant saves >>> authentication tokens for push service provider and later uses it's own >>> notification sender for a specific push service provider. And I started to >>> work on this, when here was no info that Chrome supports PushMessageData >>> and push message encryption. But now it may be reasonable to create a >>> WebPush variant. Or wait Push API in Edge and decide how to move forward >>> after the third player in the game. >>> >>> If we will create WebPush variant the advantages are: >>> >>> 1. User have to create just one variant >>> 2. Unique extended Installation entity with "auth secret" and >>> "public key" from the browser. >>> >>> but disadvantages are: >>> >>> 1. Required registration on each push notification provider: FCM, >>> MPS, etc. (but advantage that the user will not forgot something) >>> 2. Determine browser on client side, store it in Installation >>> during registration of device and make decision which push notification >>> provider should be chosen before sending each message. >>> >>> If we will create variant for each push notification provider the >>> advantages are: >>> >>> 1. Keep our rule, that each variant has it's own push message >>> provider and auth information. >>> >>> but disadvantages are: >>> >>> 1. Determine browser on client side and choose appropriate variant >>> secret. >>> 2. For FCM make decision about should we encrypt the message before >>> sent (if the client is Chrome) or not. >>> >>> Also here is a chance, that FCM, MPS and others will implement totally >>> identical push services, according to the specification [2], with >>> acknowledgment, receipts, HTTP/2, etc. So it may be reasonable to focus on >>> one WebPush variant. It will not be a problem for me to rename Firefox to >>> WebPush now. I can open a separate PR this evening. >>> >>> Any thoughts? >>> >>> [1] >>> https://developer.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-edge/platform/status/pushapi >>> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-webpush-protocol >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>> -- >>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm tempted to say that there should be a "WebPush" variant instead >>>> which could be chrome/ff/safari, but i think chrome and safari are to >>>> closely related to Android/iOS atm that it wouldn't make sense. >>>> >>>> Somewhat related to this is the JS SDK for the ups and how it works >>>> for push on the web. It was initially created to just handle registering >>>> SimplePush clients, since there was no browsers doing push. Then Safari >>>> introduced push, then chrome and FF. with regards to the UPS, these are 3 >>>> different variants, so to create 1 app that handles all three you would >>>> need to make sure to register 3 "clients" in the js sdk. I don't know if >>>> there is anyway we can help the user out with this. Safari is different >>>> enough that it would be easy for the user, but there is no real difference >>>> between the registration code in FF and chrome.(perhaps these 2 should be >>>> the "WebPush" variant) so a user agent parse would probably need to >>>> happen. i'm not really a big fan of including that in the library, but >>>> maybe we should have an example that shows push for FF and chrome in the >>>> same example. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Jul 24, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >>>> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I've added a Firefox Variant to support Push API in Mozilla Firefox >>>>> for UPS [1]. It works well with my previous example for Chrome [2]. I also >>>>> created a new PR to adapt comments in this example and notice that Firefox >>>>> also supported [3]. >>>>> >>>>> Current implementation of Firefox Variant does not support >>>>> PushMessageData [4]. Looks like it will require significant changes of UPS. >>>>> I will initiate a separate thread for this discussion. >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/744 >>>>> [2] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js-cookbook/pull/13 >>>>> [3] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js-cookbook/pull/14 >>>>> [4] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/PushMessageData >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>>>> -- >>>>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >>>> >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > > -- > Matthias Wessendorf > > blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ > twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >