2:04 p.m.
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. 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? :-)
-Jay
On Dec 5, 2012, at 2:14 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
well,
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.
-Matthias
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 <matzew(a)apache.org>
wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> yesterday some folks of the team meet, to talk about WebSocket - more
>>> generally (HTML5) connectivity.
>>>
>>> Here is a write-up from the meeting:
>>> https://gist.github.com/dd6e3c2da08830776996
>>>
>>> Feedback and comments are welcome - Please use the comment function on
>>> that gist!
>>>
>>> Cheers!
>>> Matthias
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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(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