perhaps break it down, on the server into two different sending processes ?native send (curernt)wrbpush send ?where we would have a WebPushSender API ?
perhaps break it down, on the server into two different sending processes ?native send (curernt)wrbpush send ?where we would have a WebPushSender API ?On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:hrm, not sure I am that happy about these requirements :)I guess we also need to change our data access layer to not just return tokens, but a more complex object, containing token, key and secret - hrm :)On Mon, Jul 25, 2016 at 3:19 AM, Idel Pivnitskiy <idel.pivnitskiy@gmail.com> wrote:_______________________________________________Hi all,As we discussed previously, Firefox already supports sending push message data to browser if it will be encrypted. Since version 50, Google Chrome also support it [1]. But it requires for UPS to store "public key" and "auth secret" for each Installation [2]. See current example of sending push notifications with a payload[3].Storing of two additional fields is not a big deal. But we also have to refactor PushNotificationSender [4], because it consumes a collection of device tokens as a param instead of a collection of installations.Any thoughts about how we can implement it with minimal changes?
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev--Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf--Matthias Wessendorf
blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev