On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma@redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/09/2015 11:06 AM, Erik Jan de Wit wrote:

Thoughts? Let me know if the idea is useless.
The thought of supporting vendor specific configuration details makes me 
cringe.


It convenient and not likely to change 
Because Facebook and Google are well known for not making arbitrary changes to public apis and configurations.

More importantly as an Open Source project hitching our code to the configuration of a third party proprietary system is terrifyingly bad karma. 
I disagree. We offer free OS code for these services, and users are likely using them, therefore it's nice to have these explicit config
 
Push is an exception ONLY because there isn't an equvalent open solution which has the same reach to devices.

I don't think that push is an exception due the lack of an OSS service, which the same range. Even in the case there was something like that, we'd still have same config for GCM/APNs, for a good reason
 



_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev


-- 
Summers Pittman
>>Phone:404 941 4698
>>Java is my crack.

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@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