Re: [aerogear-dev] Modularization and Push

That's not the experience we have... There are hundreds (thousands?) of posts about this matter. There are several strategies to keep the processor alive to do its work and Android (using GCM) minimizes the overload, it's more or less a consensual idea. You'll find in the Internet several articles about this too. On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:41 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote: > On 04/01/2014 09:22 AM, Miguel Lemos wrote: > > ?! I can do it worse: uninstall the app because it drains the battery. > > Push messages don't drain the battery that much. They all come in over > the GCM socket which is refresh every 15 minutes or so. > > Keeping an open socket doesn't drain the battery that badly. IN a > (contrived) experiment I had a socket which sent a packet every 5 minutes > to the device. Over the course of 5 hours the app didn't even register on > things which had drained the battery. > > > > > On Tue, Apr 1, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote: > >> On 03/31/2014 02:03 PM, Miiguel Lemos wrote: >> > Using the GCM for push notifications has a very important advantage: >> it minimizes the battery consumption, since it reduces the processor >> overload, it's not needed to open a socket to check the server on a regular >> basis, etc. In my opinion this a critical matter, minimizing the >> probability of the user turning the notifications off. >> On Android you can't turn notifications off in the same way as iOS. >> > >> > >> > Enviado do meu iPad >> > >> > No dia 31/03/2014, às 18:51, Bruno Oliveira <bruno(a)abstractj.org&gt; >> escreveu: >> > >> >> I would vote for A >> >> >> >> -- >> >> abstractj >> >> >> >> On March 31, 2014 at 10:59:01 AM, Summers Pittman ( >> supittma(a)redhat.com) wrote: >> >>>> Y'all, >> >>> So there has been some concerns with the complexity of the build >> >>> especially where including the Google GCM (push) libraries >> >>> are >> >>> concerned. Additionally there have been some requests for a >> >>> separate >> >>> "push" module which won't need the full aerogear android library. >> >>> >> >>> The full modularization of the library along with several other >> >>> improvements is scheduled for the "2.0" epic. >> >>> >> >>> So my question is a) Should we make a 2.0 which is only the >> >>> modularization sooner and iterate on that a few times before >> >>> we include >> >>> our improvements in a 3.0 or b) Should we create a "fork" project >> >>> which >> >>> is only a push module? This new project will get merged back into >> >>> the >> >>> main project when we have our complete modularizations. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> 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 >> >> >> -- >> Summers Pittman >> >>Phone:404 941 4698 >> >>Java is my crack. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing listaerogear-dev@lists.jboss.orghttps://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > > > > -- > Summers Pittman > >>Phone:404 941 4698 > >>Java is my crack. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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