Re: [aerogear-dev] Remove SimplePush broadcast from Sender API

I think I follow, and perhaps I should also provide a bit of insight about how SimplePush was designed. For mobile devices, what really kills the battery is maintaining lots of sockets. Honestly, maintaining even one socket prevents the CPU from sleeping, and that's one of the big reasons that mobile phones don't last anywhere near as long as wifi only mobile devices. Still, if we could get a single socket, there's far less CPU involved and that helps as well. Plus the "proprietary" stuff allows carriers to use various back-door things to wake phones without maintaining a network connection. In addition, SimplePush is data free. Yes, there's a "version" associated with it, but even that was seriously considered something we should replace with a second based timestamp. There are a lot of reasons for this (user privacy, back end can't be subpoenaed for useful information by governments, statelessness on servers is a wonderful thing, etc.)

Think of SimplePush as a doorbell. Apps can use it to wake up a remote app and have it connect back. There's loss, and potentially some lag around the doorbell, but it works fairly well (we hope). Still imagine having a conversation where every sentence, the person walks back to the doorbell presses the button waits for you to acknowledge it, and then begins speaking. Not really the best experience.

What makes a better experience is for Apps to see if a given client is connected, and if not, use the SimplePush system to remotely wake the app and have it connect up again. At that point, the App and Server have a far more efficient mechanism to communicate than someone walking away to hit the doorbell again.

I understand that your broadcast was for an app across devices. My concern is that for things like chat applications, stock updates or any other high message rate system, you may be sending a lot of useless data and triggering a great many unneeded events in the remote app.

I hope that I'm just misunderstanding or unclear on this, and I apologize if this is off-base. I've just learned that it's important to try and get ahead of these sorts of things as early as I can so that folks aren't screaming later.

On 2013/9/19 8:48 AM, Kris Borchers wrote: > JR, I'm a little confused by your question but let me give you a little background on this thread. > > First, we have what we call our UnifiedPush Server which to keep the explanation short, aggregates the sending of push messages to different networks (APNs, GCM, SimplePush) into a single POST request with a single JSON payload. You register applications with this server, then create variants for that app, usually into one for each network but could also be furthered fragmented into paid and free apps, etc, and then devices register with a variant and in the case of SimplePush, each endpoint is treated as a different device for simplicity. Early in development, we implemented a special send type called 'broadcast' which would allow for sending to an entire application (all devices for all variants). This issue/discussion is about removing that broadcast type because we can do the same thing with our regular send functionality by not specifying certain criteria like device id's etc. > > Does that make sense? If so and your question still stands, could you elaborate? > > On Sep 19, 2013, at 10:39 AM, JR Conlin <jrconlin(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> I'm a bit late to this, but I'm also a little curious. >> >> Are you planning on using SimplePush the way you'd use any data delivery channel? (e.g. for a given message event, you'd include a SimplePush remote app wake event?) >> >> If so, that might not be the more efficient means. >> >> On 2013/9/19 4:39 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 2:43 PM, Kris Borchers <kborcher(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>> You can do the same thing with the other platforms as with SimplePush, no? Won't it work the same way by sending a selective send that includes all necessary info for android, iOS and SimplePush but don't specify any particular devices and just a category, you then get a broadcast to all devices of all types for that category, correct? That is why I think the broadcast is pointless. >>> >>> Your point is to remove for all platforms, or just for SimplePush ? >>> >>> >>> >>> On Sep 14, 2013, at 4:19, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Sep 14, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> Yes but again when you want to do a broadcast to all the devices types and broadcast is not anymore available for SPS, does that mean that we must send 2 messages : one broadcast for "native" clients and a "empty" selective send for SPS , not sure this is effective ? I must be missing something. >>>> >>>> that's a good point >>>> >>>> It would be two request to the UnifiedPush Server: >>>> * broadcast for Android/iOS >>>> * 'selective' send for the SimplePush client >>>> >>>> I guess having the implicit 'broadcast' category does not hurt, since this (as it is today) allows sending the broadcast to _all_ platforms via one request >>>> >>>> I think this does make sense. >>>> >>>> I think (and I had similar thoughts) that Kris thinks the 'explicit' (JS client side) registration for the broadcast category seems odd; >>>> >>>> But now, after some more thoughts, I think it's a feature and we should keep it >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:59 PM, Kris Borchers <kborcher(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> The reasoning was that a broadcast can be done via selective if you just send to a category and don't list any specific endpoints. To do a broadcast, you specifically have to register a broadcast endpoint but then your category doesn't have any meaning so it seems like more loss than gain IMO. >>>> >>>> On Sep 13, 2013, at 7:11, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> What is the reasoning behind this, i think i missed something >>>>> On Sep 13, 2013, at 3:57 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Concretely what does that means ? removing "simple-push" field from the broadcast message ? >>>>>> The jira mention that we can achieve the same with a selective send but on the client side when I want to send a broadcast and being agnostic from the receiving clients I still want to use the (Unified) broadcast format. >>>>>> So my question is will SimplePush Clients still receive my message if I broadcast it (and not using the selective send) ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Sep 13, 2013 at 9:37 AM, Daniel Bevenius <daniel.bevenius(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> +1 I agree that it makes sense to remove broadcast now. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 13 September 2013 09:35, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>> Following up on [1], to catch a wider audience, than JIRA. >>>>>> >>>>>> I do agree that it feels odd, for SimplePush. >>>>>> >>>>>> -M >>>>>> >>>>>> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-323 >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Matthias Wessendorf >>>>>> >>>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>>>> 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 >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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/ >>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> >>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ >>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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