Re: [aerogear-dev] [Unified Push] Java Sender API

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:04 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: > >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> I start looking at the repo. I have some general questions and then >>>> more (not that much implementation detailed ;) ) specific proposals >>>> >>>> * Is our final goal to propose an implementation that we really want >>>> the developers to use or is it more providing a reference implementation of >>>> the sender API and developer will most of the time implement their own ? >>>> >>> >>> The goal is, to give them a Java Utility to use to for sending. If they >>> want, they can still do the HTTP by hand. Ideally we have this "client" for >>> other platforms as well: >>> * Node.js, Ruby, PHP etc >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> * How are we going to secure the API ? >>>> >>> >>> Once the endpoints are secured, we will leverage that on the client >>> side (e.g. function to specifiy the "credentials") >>> >>> >>>> >>>> * The API looks like now "fire & forget", do we plan to change that ? >>>> >>> It is fire and forget. >>> >>> >>>> I can imagine that people using the sender need to have some >>>> "feedback/return value/response" to manage their flows ? >>>> >>> >>> Well, we do not really have much control there. Apple, for instance, >>> does also not really tell you: "I could not deliver the push message to Mr. >>> XYZ". Similar is google. >>> They all have "feedback" service, that's more "here is a list of >>> invalid device tokens". This info should NEVER be returned, from our >>> Sender-Endpoint. >>> >>> Other cloud providers do similar: HTTP 200 + "Thanks we got your job, >>> it is now being processed by our system" >>> >> >> I agree that we don't have control between "our" systems and >> Google's/Apple's networks. But, between our push server and our backend >> server, the chance is bigger that the dev has more control. >> > > Not nessacarially, the PushEE could be run by the "ops department", and > different groups, within one company just use it to send messages. > > >> The thing is that the sender api now "swallow" the http status, just >> making the http status available for the backend app using the sender API >> will be a nice benefit (there could be no connection between our pushee and >> our backend app for instance) ... >> > > If PushEE is not reachable, the client would fail, and will(should:)) > report that back. This like that (low level http), we should report back. > but nothing about the actual send (the communication from PushEE -> > PushNetworks) > Okay :) "and will(should:)) report that back" was just what I wanted to point out !

> -M > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> * You say one will go away, why is that ? Do we want to lean toward a >>>> single implementation ? >>>> >>> >>> For Java, I do not see a reason in supporting two "client". I did start >>> with AsyncHttpClient and RestEasy client. I was hoping to see odds/benefits >>> in one.... >>> Looking at the code, I think I do prefer using the RestEasy inside of >>> our Java-Sender.... >>> >>> >>> >>>> We could propose different ones (and in different language, like a >>>> vertx mod client) >>>> >>> >>> of course, but that's that's outside of the "java lib" we are talking >>> about here. Surely, we can have a vertx-sender, node-sender etc >>> >>> >>>> >>>> So, now a bit more specific : >>>> I've been forking your repo : >>>> https://github.com/sebastienblanc/ag-java-sender/tree/refactoring >>>> >>>> To factor more code and make the sender API really unit testable >>>> (running without any server) I've moved a bit things and introduced a sort >>>> of Client interface that will implement really the http client we will use, >>>> this client is then injected in the sender interface. >>>> >>> >>> that is nice. The project is simple now, and was written while I was >>> hacking the sender endpoints - that way I could avoid sending lot's of >>> CURLs ;-) >>> >>> >>> >>>> With Arquillian should be easy to add real integration tests. >>>> >>> >>> sounds good >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Let's discuss ! >>>> Sebi >>>> >>>> >>>> On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 9:00 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>> a FIRST version of the Java Sender API is ready: >>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender >>>>> >>>>> Two implementations, based on different Java HTTP clients: >>>>> * RestEasy: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/ae... >>>>> * AsyncHttpClient: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/blob/master/src/main/java/org/ae... >>>>> >>>>> One will go away, time will tell... not important now... >>>>> >>>>> Tests: >>>>> >>>>> https://github.com/matzew/ag-java-sender/tree/master/src/test/java/org/ae... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> More functionality (e.g. selective send for deviceType, >>>>> MobileVariant) will follow, hand in hand with the matching endpoints >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -Matthias >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> > > > > -- > 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