Re: [aerogear-dev] [UPS] Proposal to change the Push Message Format

Ok, so we should expose a more "rich" builder API ?

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi ! >> Since the UPS has its PR now [1], any comment on my question here below >> ? TLDR : Do we want to keep the same builder API (and just change the json >> send to UPS) ? >> > > oh, you mean the JAva-Sender API? Hrm.... I think, we can (or should?) > update it. makes sense to have a sender 1.1.x, on master :) while keeping > the "old" on 1.0.x branch > > >> >> Sebi >> >> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/411 >> >> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:14 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Here a first question : >>> Do we want to change also how the Java Sender construct its message ? >>> Now we have a "plain" builder pattern, do we want now >>> message.criteria.alias("fdfd") ? >>> I'm not sure >>> Sebi >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 9:01 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Since the API Version PR [1] has been merged we can start the work on >>>> AGPUSH-534 to change the format of the Push message. There has been some >>>> discussions on this thread and this gist >>>> https://gist.github.com/sebastienblanc/8897596 >>>> Just want to be sure everyone is okay or have remarks before starting >>>> implementing this. >>>> >>>> Questions ? >>>> >>>> Sebi >>>> >>>> [1] https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/394 >>>> [2] https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-534 >>>> >>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 4:46 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist < >>>>>> lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> here is the current format for comparison >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://gist.github.com/lholmquist/8915817 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> +1 to being more structured. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> one thing though, in the current format, simplePush is not part of >>>>>>> the message, but it's own thing >>>>>>> >>>>>> Yeah, that's why I put it in the config section in my first version >>>>>> but Matzew suggested it was more part of the message payload >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Nope to config; should stay its own, does not (IMO) make sense to >>>>> include in tve message for richer platforms like Android/iOS >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Feb 9, 2014, at 9:06 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc < >>>>>> scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> I was looking at our current Push Message Format[1] and I was >>>>>> wonderimg if you should not add some more structure to it, decoupling >>>>>> config, criterias and the message itself : >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> { >>>>>> "config" : { >>>>>> >>>>>> "ttl" : 3600, >>>>>> "content-available" : true, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "simple-push": "version=123" >>>>>> >>>>>> }, >>>>>> "criteria" : { >>>>>> >>>>>> "alias" : [&quot;user(a)account.com&quot;, &quot;someone(a)aerogear.org&quot;, ....], >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "categories" : ["someCategory", "otherCategory"], >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "deviceType" : ["iPad", "AndroidTablet"], >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "variants" : ["c3f0a94f-48de-4b77-a08e-68114460857e", "444939cd-ae63-4ce1-96a4-de74b77e3737"] >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> } >>>>>> , >>>>>> "message": { >>>>>> "alert":"HELLO!", >>>>>> "sound":"default", >>>>>> "badge":7, >>>>>> >>>>>> "someKey":"some value", >>>>>> >>>>>> "anotherCustomKey":"some other value" >>>>>> >>>>>> }, >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> wdyt ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> interesting idea - it looks better structured. >>>>>> >>>>>> Re >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Sent from Gmail Mobile >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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