Re: [aerogear-dev] [Unified Push] Java Sender API

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> I start looking at the repo. I have some general questions and then >>>>> more (not that much implementation detailed ;) ) specific proposals >>>>> >>>>> * Is our final goal to propose an implementation that we really want >>>>> the developers to use or is it more providing a reference implementation of >>>>> the sender API and developer will most of the time implement their own ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> The goal is, to give them a Java Utility to use to for sending. If >>>> they want, they can still do the HTTP by hand. Ideally we have this >>>> "client" for other platforms as well: >>>> * Node.js, Ruby, PHP etc >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> * How are we going to secure the API ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Once the endpoints are secured, we will leverage that on the client >>>> side (e.g. function to specifiy the "credentials") >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> * The API looks like now "fire & forget", do we plan to change that ? >>>>> >>>> It is fire and forget. >>>> >>>> >>>>> I can imagine that people using the sender need to have some >>>>> "feedback/return value/response" to manage their flows ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Well, we do not really have much control there. Apple, for instance, >>>> does also not really tell you: "I could not deliver the push message to Mr. >>>> XYZ". Similar is google. >>>> They all have "feedback" service, that's more "here is a list of >>>> invalid device tokens". This info should NEVER be returned, from our >>>> Sender-Endpoint. >>>> >>>> Other cloud providers do similar: HTTP 200 + "Thanks we got your job, >>>> it is now being processed by our system" >>>> >>> >>> I agree that we don't have control between "our" systems and >>> Google's/Apple's networks. But, between our push server and our backend >>> server, the chance is bigger that the dev has more control. >>> >> >> Not nessacarially, the PushEE could be run by the "ops department", and >> different groups, within one company just use it to send messages. >> >> >>> The thing is that the sender api now "swallow" the http status, just >>> making the http status available for the backend app using the sender API >>> will be a nice benefit (there could be no connection between our pushee and >>> our backend app for instance) ... >>> >> >> If PushEE is not reachable, the client would fail, and will(should:)) >> report that back. This like that (low level http), we should report back. >> but nothing about the actual send (the communication from PushEE -> >> PushNetworks) >> > > Okay :) "and will(should:)) report that back" was just what I wanted to > point out ! > Ah, - OK. > >> -M >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> * You say one will go away, why is that ? Do we want to lean toward a >>>>> single implementation ? >>>>> >>>> >>>> For Java, I do not see a reason in supporting two "client". I did >>>> start with AsyncHttpClient and RestEasy client. I was hoping to see >>>> odds/benefits in one.... >>>> Looking at the code, I think I do prefer using the RestEasy inside of >>>> our Java-Sender.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> We could propose different ones (and in different language, like a >>>>> vertx mod client) >>>>> >>>> >>>> of course, but that's that's outside of the "java lib" we are talking >>>> about here. Surely, we can have a vertx-sender, node-sender etc >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, now a bit more specific : >>>>> I've been forking your repo : >>>>> https://github.com/sebastienblanc/ag-java-sender/tree/refactoring >>>>> >>>>> To factor more code and make the sender API really unit testable >>>>> (running without any server) I've moved a bit things and introduced a sort >>>>> of Client interface that will implement really the http client we will use, >>>>> this client is then injected in the sender interface. >>>>> >>>> >>>> that is nice. The project is simple now, and was written while I was >>>> hacking the sender endpoints - that way I could avoid sending lot's of >>>> CURLs ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> With Arquillian should be easy to add real integration tests. >>>>> >>>> >>>> sounds good >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Let's discuss ! >>>>> Sebi >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> >>>>>> a FIRST version of the Java Sender API is ready: >>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender >>>>>> >>>>>> Two implementations, based on different Java HTTP clients: >>>>>> * RestEasy: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/ae... >>>>>> * AsyncHttpClient: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/ae... >>>>>> >>>>>> One will go away, time will tell... not important now... >>>>>> >>>>>> Tests: >>>>>> >>>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/tree/master/src/test/java/org/ae... >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> More functionality (e.g. selective send for deviceType, >>>>>> MobileVariant) will follow, hand in hand with the matching endpoints >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -Matthias >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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