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

if #3 is possible (check&ignore the ack backed into the library) I would go for this option as well.

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