AeroGear Crypto Java 0.1.2 released
by Bruno Oliveira
Good morning, just to let you know we released today the bits for digital signatures and some bug fixes.
Have a happy new year sweet hearts.
--
abstractj
4 years
Android Push: Firebase Cloud Messaging
by Matthias Wessendorf
Hi,
Wednesday at Google IO, Google did announce the availability of Firebase
Cloud Messaging (FCM), which deprecates Google Cloud Messaging (GCM).
Here is a quite from the GCM documentation website:
>>
Firebase Cloud Messaging (FCM) is the new version of GCM. It inherits the
reliable and scalable GCM infrastructure, plus new features! See the FAQ to
learn more. If you are integrating messaging in a new app, start with FCM.
GCM users are strongly recommended to upgrade to FCM, in order to benefit
from new FCM features today and in the future.
<<
At the core FCM is basically the same as GCM-3 (e.g. topic support), but
there are some changes especially in the client SDKs. I've created a few
JIRAs to scope the body of work, needed to deliver FCM support on our SDKs,
as well keeping our server and documentation in sync with the latest
offering: https://issues.jboss.org/issues/?filter=12327296
Greetings,
Matthias
* https://firebase.google.com/docs/cloud-messaging/
* https://developers.google.com/cloud-messaging/
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
10 years
UnifiedPush Node sender move to Promises
by Luke Holmquist
Hello people,
I think i would like to move the unifiedpush-node-sender,
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-nodejs-client , to be
Promise based.
Currently it uses callback pattern that many node.js packages use as well
as emitting events.
When i first created this 3 years ago, that was sort of the standard way of
doing things, but Promises have become very popular(i know i love them :))
and have been a native feature since node 0.12.x
considering we have not yet hit a 1.0.0, we can pretty much just make this
change and we will be ok.
If this is to big of a change all at once, we could always do both
callbacks and Promises. I think we did this for Datamanager in the past.
Perhaps once we fully move to promises, then we can hit a 1.0.0
My only concern is other projects that might be using the sender that are
not yet on node 0.12 or above, since this is when promises became native.
I would really like to not have to include the polyfill.
i suppose those users would need to stick to the previous versions then.
anyway, would like to hear some thoughts.
-Luke
10 years
UPS Device Registration Endpoints
by Luke Holmquist
thats right folks, i'm asking this question on a Friday before a Holiday
weekend(US) at 3:52(est)
i've started to implement the Device registration endpoints in node and was
just wondering what the id is here in this header
-v -H "Accept: application/json" -H "Content-type: application/json"
-H "aerogear-push-id: someid"
is it something specific, or just a random number/alpha-numeric thingy
here is the doc link for reference:
https://aerogear.org/docs/specs/aerogear-unifiedpush-rest/#246535932
I've also decided to create this as a separate module instead of including
it in the node admin client here:
https://github.com/bucharest-gold/unifiedpush-admin-client
mostly becuase these registration endpoints don't needed to be KC
authenticated. and they could also be used on a IOT device or something
that runs node that has webpush/simplePush or some new crazy protocol.
-Luke
10 years
SimplePush: are we done with it ?
by Matthias Wessendorf
Hi,
I wonder if we should call it a day on our SimplePush efforts?
We had a 0.12.1 release in November 2014:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-simplepush-server/releases
and the latest commit to the source code was in February 2015:
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-simplepush-server/commits/master
We do have some open JIRAs for a potential 0.13 release, as well as some
future tickets:
* https://issues.jboss.org/projects/AGPUSH/versions/12326562
* https://issues.jboss.org/projects/AGPUSH/versions/12326563
Now, that there is a follow up standard on this, WebPush, and we have a
more active community around that, and a Google Summer of Code student, I
do see this being much more interesting than SimplePush, moving forward.
I think our friends at Mozilla are also seeing much more value in focusing
on WebPush. I guess it's a bit different there as they have SimplePush in
production.
Now... what we could do it, get a last release out and instead '0.13'call
it 1.0.0, and put a note to the Github repository that this is the last
release and we stop maintaining this stuff.
Or do some really feel they want to actively continue the SimplePush server
?
I think it was a good research project and I am happy we got some momentum
around it, but I believe the future is WebPush instead of SimplePush
Feedback is more than welcome!
Matthias
--
Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
10 years, 1 month
GSoC plan for WebPush
by Idel Pivnitskiy
Hi all,
I've come back from the little vocation and ready for the work on my GSoC
project.
What will be our plan?
I may work according to my proposal: the first steps will be the adding
WebPush support for Chrome and Firefox directly to UPS (through Google
Cloud Messaging and Mozilla Push Service).
Another way: I may begin my work from WebPush Server.
If we will begin from UPS, from which branch should I work? And for which
release?
Best regards,
Idel Pivnitskiy
--
Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy>
GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy>
10 years, 1 month
