On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 9:04 PM, Jay Balunas <jbalunas(a)redhat.com> wrote:
This is similar to what I was thinking as well.
There are two main types of push; native & non-native, but I don't like those
designations. It is really more like "live" & "background" push,
referring to the state of the client.
Live push == Application is open, and active on the client. Push msgs are routed to the
application via more traditional long/short polling, websockets, etc...
Background push == Application is closed, and not active on the client. Regular live
push messages are not possible. The only way to communicate is via APN, GC native
messaging (sorry web apps - no love).
In an ideal world there would be no difference to the application developer using
AeroGear API's (client or server). The server-side would know what clients are
available, and the clients would be listening automatically. Sending a message would be
agnostic for the server-side.
Unfortunately this can not "fully" be the case as background/native messages
have limitations on the content, client support, and delivery mechanisms.
one option is, to "push / poll". The client gets a msg on what to
fetch. When back online it performs a "normal" fetch/poll for the data
So I think the best we can do is setup a "smart" message
system that gets you pretty close with good fallback api's and checks for what sort of
messages are possible, or configured.
Make sense, or is this just a big ramble? :-)
On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
> the idea is to have a wrapper/hook for "push notification" (e.g. APN)
> in the notifier as well:
> * receiving 'native push' events, when the app is offline (inactive,
> not watching the tab/window)
> If an app is offline, you simple can't receive a websocket frame/msg.
> So push is needed to tell AG that is needs to fetch data for sync etc.
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM, Burr Sutter <bsutter(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> I am concerned about the words "push" and "notifier" as those
can become confused with real "push notifications" which we will have to have a
client API for in the future.
>> On Dec 3, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
>>> any further comments?
>>> On Thu, Nov 22, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Matthias Wessendorf
>>>> yesterday some folks of the team meet, to talk about WebSocket - more
>>>> generally (HTML5) connectivity.
>>>> Here is a write-up from the meeting:
>>>> Feedback and comments are welcome - Please use the comment function on
>>>> that gist!
>>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> Matthias Wessendorf
>>> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
>>> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
>>> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
> Matthias Wessendorf
> blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/
> sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf
> twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf