Summers, Passos, wondering if we should/could honor "android" specific keys as well (similar to the iOS keys that we "honor") See: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-...

-Matthias On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: reminder, that ID is just the primary key :-) meaningful are "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: Luke once this landed, it will be "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" - the ID is than meaningless (at least for PushEE server). -M On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: plus plus On May 31, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-86 > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Luke Holmquist > <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 31, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Matthias Wessendorf > <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > >> somehow the device needs to say: "I belong to >> android variant" >> >> besides the @Id /PK, we can have a second field / >> column that represents: >> * PushAppID >> * VariantID >> > Yup. Having these would solve that > > >> >> Was that your question? >> >> On Friday, May 31, 2013, Lucas Holmquist wrote: >> >> something that i was thinking about after doing >> some examples is that i'm not sure how i feel >> about using the PK's of each table as the >> identifier to register/broadcast clients. >> >> We are sort of giving meaning to data that >> really shouldn't have meaning. it should really >> only be used to identify the row. It might be >> better to have another key on each table/object >> that is the identifier. >> >> So in one of the examples i did, the app on the >> device will register the device with the push >> server, but i needed to also include the id of >> the variant instance >> >> i guess i'm thinking if someone migrates their >> database, these keys could get messed up. >> >> >> wdyt? >> >> >> On May 28, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf >> <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Corinne Krych >>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> in selective push is: >>> ==> variant: iOS + alias: mwessendorf >>> a valid criteria too? >>> >>> >>> >>> yes. let me update the related doc(s) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 May 2013 08:51, Corinne Krych >>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 May 2013 08:48, Matthias >>> Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>> TYPO: >>> ==> variant: iOS (since a PushAPP >>> _might_ have only one iOS variant) >>> + deviceType:iPadMini + alias: >>> mwessendorf >>> or >>> ==> variant: iOS (since a PushAPP >>> _might_ have only one iOS variant) >>> + deviceType:iPhone + alias: >>> mwessendorf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:43 AM, >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:00 >>> AM, Corinne Krych >>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> When doing selective push >>> query, is there any overlap >>> between mobile variant >>> (which I understand like >>> mobile type which contains >>> certificates) and device type? >>> >>> >>> MobileVariant (or call it type) >>> is something like "Android", or >>> "iOS". >>> deviceTypes would be iPad, >>> iPod, iPhone, iWatch :) - or >>> "Android Table", "Andrpid >>> phone", android what not >>> >>> >>> Sure.... ideally there are >>> several variants: >>> - iOS iPhone 5 optimised app in >>> the app store >>> - iOS iPhone 4s optimised app >>> in the app store >>> - iOS iPhone 3 optimised app in >>> the app store >>> - iOS iPad mini optimised app >>> in the app store >>> etc :) >>> >>> But, if there is only one >>> variant, it's totally valid to >>> install an iOS application >>> (from the appstore), on an iPad >>> and an iPhone; >>> >>> Both aimed at defining >>> categories. >>> Are those categories >>> defined and fixed in the >>> spec or can they be extended? >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't understand categories, here >>> >>> Can we do a selective push >>> based on mobileType=mobile >>> variant and alias=john@gmail? >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> 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 >> <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> >> 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 > > > > > -- > 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 > <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> > 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 -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- Matthias Wessendorf blog: http://matthiaswessendorf.wordpress.com/ sessions: http://www.slideshare.net/mwessendorf twitter: http://twitter.com/mwessendorf -- 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

Summers, Passos, wondering if we should/could honor "android" specific keys as well (similar to the iOS keys that we "honor") See: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-... -Matthias On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > reminder, that ID is just the primary key :-) > > meaningful are "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt;wrote: > >> Luke >> >> once this landed, it will be "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" - the >> ID is than meaningless (at least for PushEE server). >> >> -M >> >> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote: >> >>> plus plus >>> >>> On May 31, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-86 >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Luke Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com&gt;wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On May 31, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> somehow the device needs to say: "I belong to android variant" >>>> >>>> besides the @Id /PK, we can have a second field / column that >>>> represents: >>>> * PushAppID >>>> * VariantID >>>> >>>> Yup. Having these would solve that >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Was that your question? >>>> >>>> On Friday, May 31, 2013, Lucas Holmquist wrote: >>>> >>>>> something that i was thinking about after doing some examples is that >>>>> i'm not sure how i feel about using the PK's of each table as the >>>>> identifier to register/broadcast clients. >>>>> >>>>> We are sort of giving meaning to data that really shouldn't have >>>>> meaning. it should really only be used to identify the row. It might be >>>>> better to have another key on each table/object that is the identifier. >>>>> >>>>> So in one of the examples i did, the app on the device will register >>>>> the device with the push server, but i needed to also include the id of >>>>> the variant instance >>>>> >>>>> i guess i'm thinking if someone migrates their database, these keys >>>>> could get messed up. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> wdyt? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On May 28, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Corinne Krych < >>>>> corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> in selective push is: >>>>> ==> variant: iOS + alias: mwessendorf >>>>> a valid criteria too? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> yes. let me update the related doc(s) >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28 May 2013 08:51, Corinne Krych <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 28 May 2013 08:48, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> TYPO: >>>>> ==> variant: iOS (since a PushAPP _might_ have only one iOS variant) >>>>> + deviceType:iPadMini + alias: mwessendorf >>>>> or >>>>> ==> variant: iOS (since a PushAPP _might_ have only one iOS variant) >>>>> + deviceType:iPhone + alias: mwessendorf >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:43 AM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 12:00 AM, Corinne Krych < >>>>> corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>> When doing selective push query, is there any overlap between mobile >>>>> variant (which I understand like mobile type which contains certificates) >>>>> and device type? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> MobileVariant (or call it type) is something like "Android", or "iOS". >>>>> deviceTypes would be iPad, iPod, iPhone, iWatch :) - or "Android >>>>> Table", "Andrpid phone", android what not >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure.... ideally there are several variants: >>>>> - iOS iPhone 5 optimised app in the app store >>>>> - iOS iPhone 4s optimised app in the app store >>>>> - iOS iPhone 3 optimised app in the app store >>>>> - iOS iPad mini optimised app in the app store >>>>> etc :) >>>>> >>>>> But, if there is only one variant, it's totally valid to install an >>>>> iOS application (from the appstore), on an iPad and an iPhone; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Both aimed at defining categories. >>>>> Are those categories defined and fixed in the spec or can they be >>>>> extended? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't understand categories, here >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Can we do a selective push based on mobileType=mobile variant and >>>>> alias=john@gmail? >>>>> >>>>>

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me <mailto:daniel@passos.me>> wrote: We don't have special words on Android, but we can use the same of iOS and shoot the same behaviors. wdyt? Like you did on the PR, for "alert", right ? I personally do like that very much

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: Summers, Passos, wondering if we should/could honor "android" specific keys as well (similar to the iOS keys that we "honor") See: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-... -Matthias On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: reminder, that ID is just the primary key :-) meaningful are "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: Luke once this landed, it will be "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" - the ID is than meaningless (at least for PushEE server). -M On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: plus plus On May 31, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-86 > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Luke Holmquist > <lholmqui(a)redhat.com > <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On May 31, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Matthias > Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org > <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > >> somehow the device needs to say: "I belong >> to android variant" >> >> besides the @Id /PK, we can have a second >> field / column that represents: >> * PushAppID >> * VariantID >> > Yup. Having these would solve that > > >> >> Was that your question? >> >> On Friday, May 31, 2013, Lucas Holmquist wrote: >> >> something that i was thinking about >> after doing some examples is that i'm >> not sure how i feel about using the PK's >> of each table as the identifier to >> register/broadcast clients. >> >> We are sort of giving meaning to data >> that really shouldn't have meaning. it >> should really only be used to identify >> the row. It might be better to have >> another key on each table/object that is >> the identifier. >> >> So in one of the examples i did, the >> app on the device will register the >> device with the push server, but i >> needed to also include the id of the >> variant instance >> >> i guess i'm thinking if someone migrates >> their database, these keys could get >> messed up. >> >> >> wdyt? >> >> >> On May 28, 2013, at 2:53 AM, Matthias >> Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, >>> Corinne Krych <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>> in selective push is: >>> ==> variant: iOS + alias: mwessendorf >>> a valid criteria too? >>> >>> >>> >>> yes. let me update the related doc(s) >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 May 2013 08:51, Corinne Krych >>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 28 May 2013 08:48, Matthias >>> Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; >>> wrote: >>> >>> TYPO: >>> ==> variant: iOS (since a >>> PushAPP _might_ have only >>> one iOS variant) + >>> deviceType:iPadMini + >>> alias: mwessendorf >>> or >>> ==> variant: iOS (since a >>> PushAPP _might_ have only >>> one iOS variant) + >>> deviceType:iPhone + alias: >>> mwessendorf >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at >>> 8:43 AM, Matthias >>> Wessendorf >>> <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at >>> 12:00 AM, Corinne Krych >>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>> >>> When doing >>> selective push >>> query, is there any >>> overlap between >>> mobile variant >>> (which I understand >>> like mobile type >>> which contains >>> certificates) and >>> device type? >>> >>> >>> MobileVariant (or call >>> it type) is something >>> like "Android", or "iOS". >>> deviceTypes would be >>> iPad, iPod, iPhone, >>> iWatch :) - or >>> "Android Table", >>> "Andrpid phone", >>> android what not >>> >>> >>> Sure.... ideally there >>> are several variants: >>> - iOS iPhone >>> 5 optimised app in the >>> app store >>> - iOS iPhone 4s >>> optimised app in the >>> app store >>> - iOS iPhone 3 >>> optimised app in the >>> app store >>> - iOS iPad mini >>> optimised app in the >>> app store >>> etc :) >>> >>> But, if there is only >>> one variant, it's >>> totally valid to >>> install an iOS >>> application (from the >>> appstore), on an iPad >>> and an iPhone; >>> >>> Both aimed at >>> defining categories. >>> Are those >>> categories defined >>> and fixed in the >>> spec or can they be >>> extended? >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't understand >>> categories, here >>> >>> Can we do a >>> selective push >>> based on >>> mobileType=mobile >>> variant and >>> alias=john@gmail? >>> _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto: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(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev

On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Summers Pittman <supittma(a)redhat.com <mailto:supittma@redhat.com>> wrote: On 06/18/2013 10:46 AM, Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me > <mailto:daniel@passos.me>> wrote: > > We don't have special words on Android, but we can use the > same of iOS and shoot the same behaviors. wdyt? > > > Like you did on the PR, for "alert", right ? > > I personally do like that very much > So Android doesn't define any specific "keys". awesome, even better. Forget what I was asking :) Are you asking for some generic "keys" which pushee and ag-android will "natively" support? I like what you guys did for "alert", on Android :) That would be cool, I think :) https://github.com/danielpassos/aerogear-android/blob/push/src/org/jboss/...

> > On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:15 AM, Matthias Wessendorf > <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > > Summers, Passos, > > > wondering if we should/could honor "android" specific > keys as well (similar to the iOS keys that we "honor") > > See: > https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear.org/blob/master/docs/specs/aerogear-... > > > -Matthias > > > On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:36 PM, Matthias Wessendorf > <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > > reminder, that ID is just the primary key :-) > > meaningful are "pushApplicationID" and "variantID" > > > On Tue, Jun 4, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Matthias Wessendorf > <matzew(a)apache.org <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > > Luke > > once this landed, it will be "pushApplicationID" > and "variantID" - the ID is than meaningless (at > least for PushEE server). > > -M > > > On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:45 PM, Lucas Holmquist > <lholmqui(a)redhat.com > <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: > > plus plus > > On May 31, 2013, at 12:39 PM, Matthias > Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org > <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: > >> https://issues.jboss.org/browse/AGPUSH-86 >> >> >> On Fri, May 31, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Luke >> Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com >> <mailto:lholmqui@redhat.com>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On May 31, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Matthias >> Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >> <mailto:matzew@apache.org>> wrote: >> >>> somehow the device needs to say: "I >>> belong to android variant" >>> >>> besides the @Id /PK, we can have a >>> second field / column that represents: >>> * PushAppID >>> * VariantID >>> >> Yup. Having these would solve that >> >> >>> >>> Was that your question? >>> >>> On Friday, May 31, 2013, Lucas >>> Holmquist wrote: >>> >>> something that i was thinking about >>> after doing some examples is that >>> i'm not sure how i feel about using >>> the PK's of each table as the >>> identifier to register/broadcast >>> clients. >>> >>> We are sort of giving meaning to >>> data that really shouldn't have >>> meaning. it should really only be >>> used to identify the row. It might >>> be better to have another key on >>> each table/object that is the >>> identifier. >>> >>> So in one of the examples i did, >>> the app on the device will >>> register the device with the push >>> server, but i needed to also >>> include the id of the variant instance >>> >>> i guess i'm thinking if someone >>> migrates their database, these >>> keys could get messed up. >>> >>> >>> wdyt? >>> >>> >>> On May 28, 2013, at 2:53 AM, >>> Matthias Wessendorf >>> <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 8:51 AM, >>>> Corinne Krych >>>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> in selective push is: >>>> ==> variant: iOS + alias: >>>> mwessendorf >>>> a valid criteria too? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> yes. let me update the related doc(s) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28 May 2013 08:51, Corinne >>>> Krych <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 28 May 2013 08:48, >>>> Matthias Wessendorf >>>> <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> TYPO: >>>> ==> variant: iOS >>>> (since a PushAPP >>>> _might_ have only one >>>> iOS variant) + >>>> deviceType:iPadMini + >>>> alias: mwessendorf >>>> or >>>> ==> variant: iOS >>>> (since a PushAPP >>>> _might_ have only one >>>> iOS variant) + >>>> deviceType:iPhone + >>>> alias: mwessendorf >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 28, 2013 >>>> at 8:43 AM, Matthias >>>> Wessendorf >>>> <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 28, >>>> 2013 at 12:00 AM, >>>> Corinne Krych >>>> <corinnekrych(a)gmail.com&gt; >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> When doing >>>> selective push >>>> query, is >>>> there any >>>> overlap >>>> between mobile >>>> variant (which >>>> I understand >>>> like mobile >>>> type which >>>> contains >>>> certificates) >>>> and device type? >>>> >>>> >>>> MobileVariant (or >>>> call it type) is >>>> something like >>>> "Android", or "iOS". >>>> deviceTypes would >>>> be iPad, iPod, >>>> iPhone, iWatch :) >>>> - or "Android >>>> Table", "Andrpid >>>> phone", android >>>> what not >>>> >>>> >>>> Sure.... ideally >>>> there are several >>>> variants: >>>> - iOS iPhone >>>> 5 optimised app in >>>> the app store >>>> - iOS iPhone 4s >>>> optimised app in >>>> the app store >>>> - iOS iPhone 3 >>>> optimised app in >>>> the app store >>>> - iOS iPad mini >>>> optimised app in >>>> the app store >>>> etc :) >>>> >>>> But, if there is >>>> only one variant, >>>> it's totally valid >>>> to install an iOS >>>> application (from >>>> the appstore), on >>>> an iPad and an iPhone; >>>> >>>> Both aimed at >>>> defining >>>> categories. >>>> Are those >>>> categories >>>> defined and >>>> fixed in the >>>> spec or can >>>> they be extended? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don't understand >>>> categories, here >>>> >>>> Can we do a >>>> selective push >>>> based on >>>> mobileType=mobile >>>> variant and >>>> alias=john@gmail? >>>> > > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > <mailto: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(a)lists.jboss.org <mailto:aerogear-dev@lists.jboss.org> > 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 -- 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