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

I've improved WebPushNotificationSender. Now it can send push notifications to both push notification providers: FCM and MPS. See the last commit in this PR [1]. I also updated a demo web app for Push API [2]. Everything works perfect in Chrome and Firefox with UPS and WebPush Variant :) [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/745 [2] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js-cookbook/pull/15 Best regards, Idel Pivnitskiy -- Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 1:48 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&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 ? > > > 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 >> > > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev