On Feb 2, 2015, at 12:31 PM, Sébastien Blanc
<scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 2 févr. 2015 à 16:28, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com
<mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> a écrit :
>
>> On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com
<mailto:scm.blanc@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just bumping up this thread since
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/483
<
https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-unifiedpush-server/pull/483> has been merged
.
>> Do we still plan to change also the wording/flow for the now called variant
"Android" ? To something like GCM ? (Check this thread)
>> Is this the related jira
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928
<
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928> ?
>
> Me and matzew discussed this a bit and i think it no longer makes sense to change it.
I think the effort to change this and migrate is not worth it.
Make sense. Same for APNs with Safari/macOS I presume ?
i think that is probably
a fair statement. There are 2 differences, the first is that safari push needs a
production cert. the second is the payload is in a slightly different format, but that
the library we use for apns supports it(i actually sent the PR for that :))
So i think doc updates are really the only thing, he majority of the work that goes into
setting up safari push is not ups related.
Let me try it out with the existing iOS variant and then i’ll update JIRA's
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Sebi
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me
<mailto:daniel@passos.me>> wrote:
>> +1 to GCM logo
>>
>> On Sep 3, 2014 5:28 PM, "Sébastien Blanc" <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com
<mailto:scm.blanc@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Looks like there is a gcm logo but it is not really nice and I can not find it
with a decent resolution
>> <logo.png>
>>
>> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>>
>> Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com
<mailto:lukas.fryc@gmail.com>> a écrit :
>>
>>> From the UI perspective, Android/Chrome merge has few options:
>>>
>>> 1. merged half-Android / half-Chrome logo (+ "Android / Chrome" as
a description)
>>>
>>> 2. use one radio button, but two rows with two logos (Android, Chrome)
>>>
>>> 3. use Google logo ("G"? [1]) (and "Google Cloud
Messaging" description)
>>>
>>>
>>> Anyway, in any case it won't be as nice and polished as it is now. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> [1]
https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&...
<
https://www.google.com/search?q=g+google&source=lnms&tbm=isch&...
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com
<mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> So to follow up on this,
>>>
>>>
>>> Chrome Packaged Applications, no recommend to use the same GCM network for
Android when sending push notifications.
>>>
>>> Currently in the UnifiedPush Server, a user can use the Android variant to
use this new API now.
>>>
>>> I think we should rename the AndroidVariant.class and related stuff to
GCMVariant .
>>>
>>> I created this Task to track the changes,
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928
<
https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-928> since we need to deprecate the current
Chrome implementation and update the UI’s for the new way.
>>>
>>> i’m wondering for the “Create Variant” dialog, for Android, we would need
to change the name to GCM, but for the icon’s i wonder how it would look to put both
Android and Chrome icons, side by side
>>>
>>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:19 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com
<mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)gmail.com
<mailto:lukas.fryc@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hey Luke,
>>>>>
>>>>> ad) Variants
>>>>>
>>>>> it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant!
>>>>
>>>> yea, it’s looking like it will be the same thing, we might just have to
make a note of it on the UI
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ad) Compatibility
>>>>>
>>>>> I would say we should preserve the compatibility with 1.x as long as
it does not make much efforts to keep both supported.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it would be too much hassle, let's remove it in 1.1.
>>>>> Chrome is updated pro-actively anyway, so no one will hear about the
old API in few months.
>>>>
>>>> exactly, so maybe a warning or something
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>
>>>>> ~ Lukas
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist
<lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>
>>>>> now that the 1.0.0-final is pretty much out for the UnifiedPush
Server, i’m starting to look at the new API that Chrome apps use for sending push
notifications.
>>>>>
>>>>> the TL;DR of it is, it’s basically the same as Android now.( no more
refresh tokens and access tokens and such )
>>>>>
>>>>> So the question is, do we need to have a deprecation period on what
is currently there?
>>>>>
>>>>> The v1 of the chrome pushMessaging api has become legacy and it is
recommended to use the new stuff.
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1
<
https://developer.chrome.com/apps/cloudMessagingV1>
>>>>>
>>>>> While i have looked to deeply, it’s possible we can use the same
“Variant” structure for Chrome Apps, Since they will be using the same Network
>>>>>
>>>>> wdyt?
>>>>>
>>>>> -Luke
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
<mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>________________...
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org>
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
<
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev>