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

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@gmail.com> 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@apache.org> wrote:

On Monday, February 10, 2014, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com> 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@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew@apache.org> wrote:

On Sun, Feb 9, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc@gmail.com> 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" : ["user@account.com", "someone@aerogear.org", ....],




      "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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@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@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev