Re: [aerogear-dev] GCM 3.0 and Instance ID

On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 10:32 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > if #3 is possible (check&ignore the ack backed into the library) I would > go for this option as well. > The ACK is mostly ignored now. There is a log message saying that the GCM handler couldn't process it but otherwise the application is unaffected.

> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:28 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Jun 17, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Sooooo we have a 2.2.0 staged. Google has a ton of new functionality >>> rolling out for GCM. >>> >>> We think that 2.2.0 works with it mostly correctly but we are finding >>> some "gotchas". Notably it looks like Google is sending some ACK messages >>> after we register that the library is ignoring. >>> >>> We will need to support InstanceID (tl;dr; Google is enhancing >>> registraiton_id). Passos and I are still digesting the volumes of stuff >>> being rolled out from IO so we can't really give too many details right now >>> because we simply don't know them (And Google is still updating their docs, >>> fixing links, etc). >>> >>> So the question to the list is : >>> Do we delay 2.2.0 and include support for InstanceID and any other >>> best practices Google has introduced or do we release 2.2.0, document / >>> work around any gotchas and then prioritize GCM 3.0 support for 2.3.0? >>> >> >> (assuming this is related to the NPE I am seeing in [1]) >> >> I think the ultimate goal for 2.2.0 should be to to not crash like in >> [1]. >> >> I see three options: >> 1) document the work-around ([2]) and release the _existing_ 2.2.0, as is >> -> The fact that the work-around needs to be added to (almost) all apps, >> makes it an odd work-around (not saying it's a no-go) >> 2) delay the 2.2.0 and get full GCM 3.0 support in there >> -> IMO it's unknown how long that takes, and ideally our 2.2.0 >> AGDroid-Push should be out once we have the UPS released (early July); This >> also could mean a delay on our Cordova lib. >> 3) Update 2.2.0 to ignore the ACK sent from GCM 3.0, and get a 2.2.x (or >> 2.3.0) a bit later for full support on GCM 3.0 >> -> IMO this allows us to release UPS 1.1.0 (and AGDroid-Push) in a >> reasonable timeframe and moves the work-around into our library, and not >> onto all the app developers. >> >> >> My vote would be going w/ option #3, given the above reasoning and the >> fact that we don't use any GCM 3.0 feature atm, it sounds fairly safe (at >> least to me) doing the working inside of our library >> >> -Matthias >> >> [1] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGDROID-425 >> [2] >> https://github.com/jboss-mobile/unified-push-helloworld/commit/077bfdce89... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev