Summers, Passos,

wondering if we should/could honor "android" specific keys as well (similar to the iOS keys that we "honor")

See:

https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-push-messages/index.markdown#ios-special-keys

-Matthias

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

reminder, that ID is just the primary key :-)

meaningful are "pushApplicationID" and "variantID"

On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

Luke

once this landed, it will be "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" - the ID is than meaningless (at least for PushEE server).

-M

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> wrote:

plus plus 

On May 31, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-86

On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> wrote:

Sent from my iPhone

On May 31, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

somehow the device needs to say: "I belong to android variant"

besides the @Id /PK, we can have a second field / column that represents:

* PushAppID

* VariantID

Yup. Having these would solve that

Was that your question? 

On Friday, May 31, 2013, Lucas Holmquist wrote:

something that i was thinking about after doing some examples is that i'm not sure how i feel about using the PK's of each table as the identifier to register/broadcast clients.

We are sort of giving meaning to data that really shouldn't have meaning.  it should really only be used to identify the row.  It might be better to have another key on each table/object that is the identifier.

So in one of the examples i did,  the app on the device will register the device with the push server,  but i needed to also include the id of the variant instance

i guess i'm thinking if someone migrates their database,  these keys could get messed up.

wdyt?

On May 28, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych@gmail.com> wrote:

in selective push is:

==> variant: iOS  + alias: mwessendorf

a valid criteria too?

yes. let me update the related doc(s)

 

On 28 May 2013 08:51, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych@gmail.com> wrote:

On 28 May 2013 08:48, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

TYPO:

==> variant: iOS (since a PushAPP _might_ have only one iOS variant) + deviceType:iPadMini  + alias: mwessendorf

or

==> variant: iOS (since a PushAPP _might_ have only one iOS variant) + deviceType:iPhone  + alias: mwessendorf

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych@gmail.com> wrote:

When doing selective push query, is there any overlap between mobile variant (which I understand like mobile type which contains certificates) and device type?

MobileVariant (or call it type) is something like "Android", or "iOS".

deviceTypes would be iPad, iPod, iPhone, iWatch :)  - or "Android Table", "Andrpid phone", android what not

Sure.... ideally there are several variants:

- iOS iPhone 5 optimised app in the app store

- iOS iPhone 4s optimised app in the app store

- iOS iPhone 3 optimised app in the app store

- iOS iPad mini optimised app in the app store

etc :)

But, if there is only one variant, it's totally valid to install an iOS application (from the appstore), on an iPad and an iPhone;

 

Both aimed at defining categories. 

Are those categories defined and fixed in the spec or can they be extended?

I don't understand categories, here

 

Can we do a selective push based on mobileType=mobile variant and alias=john@gmail?