Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone WebPush Server ?

I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch of UPS, while on this project, no ?

Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone WebPush Server ?

Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be nice. Makes you more independent. E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are connected to the public internet ;-)

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing >> Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone >> WebPush Server ? > > > I think that we don't need our WebPush Server for Chrome/Firefox support. > Because it possible to send push messages to Chrome only through GCM, > using their API-key. > Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be nice. Makes you more independent. E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are connected to the public internet ;-) Not a high priority, but IMO worth to think about this > > >> I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch of UPS, >> while on this project, no ? > > > Think that it could be done at the end of the summer, if there are no > reasons to keep it. After or during the integration of WebPush Server to > UPS. I prefer after, like it was with Doclet and Miredot. > +1 makes sense to remove SimplePush, once WebPush is around. WebPush is the successor of SimplePush in general > > > > Best regards, > Idel Pivnitskiy > -- > Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> > GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I've come back from the little vocation and ready for the work on my >>> GSoC project. >>> >>> What will be our plan? >>> I may work according to my proposal: the first steps will be the adding >>> WebPush support for Chrome and Firefox directly to UPS (through Google >>> Cloud Messaging and Mozilla Push Service). >>> >> >> I like that, but >> >> >>> Another way: I may begin my work from WebPush Server. >>> >> >> Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing >> Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone >> WebPush Server ? >> >> >> At the end of the day, UPS is just another 'driver', triggering the push >> ? >> >> >> Oh, I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch of >> UPS, while on this project, no ? >> >> >> >>> >>> If we will begin from UPS, from which branch should I work? And for >>> which release? >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>> -- >>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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

Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big >> advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you >> as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to >> connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be >> nice. Makes you more independent. >> E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are >> connected to the public internet ;-) > > > Yes, good case! > But I think that it will not work with Chrome now: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API/Using_the_Push_... > Hope that it will be possible with Firefox, but I need to double check it. > We could offer a little decorator, if the user explicitly wants a customer server :) We did that for simple push too: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/simplepush/aeroge...

On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big >> advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you >> as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to >> connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be >> nice. Makes you more independent. >> E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are >> connected to the public internet ;-) > > > Yes, good case! > But I think that it will not work with Chrome now: > https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API/Using_the_Push_... > Hope that it will be possible with Firefox, but I need to double check it. > We could offer a little decorator, if the user explicitly wants a customer server :) We did that for simple push too: https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/simplepush/aeroge... > > Best regards, > Idel Pivnitskiy > -- > Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> > GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing >>>> Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone >>>> WebPush Server ? >>> >>> >>> I think that we don't need our WebPush Server for Chrome/Firefox >>> support. Because it possible to send push messages to Chrome only >>> through GCM, using their API-key. >>> >> >> Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big >> advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you >> as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to >> connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be >> nice. Makes you more independent. >> >> E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are >> connected to the public internet ;-) >> >> Not a high priority, but IMO worth to think about this >> >> >>> >>> >>>> I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch of >>>> UPS, while on this project, no ? >>> >>> >>> Think that it could be done at the end of the summer, if there are no >>> reasons to keep it. After or during the integration of WebPush Server to >>> UPS. I prefer after, like it was with Doclet and Miredot. >>> >> >> +1 makes sense to remove SimplePush, once WebPush is around. WebPush is >> the successor of SimplePush in general >> >>> >>> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>> -- >>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> >>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >>>> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi all, >>>>> >>>>> I've come back from the little vocation and ready for the work on my >>>>> GSoC project. >>>>> >>>>> What will be our plan? >>>>> I may work according to my proposal: the first steps will be the >>>>> adding WebPush support for Chrome and Firefox directly to UPS (through >>>>> Google Cloud Messaging and Mozilla Push Service). >>>>> >>>> >>>> I like that, but >>>> >>>> >>>>> Another way: I may begin my work from WebPush Server. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing >>>> Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone >>>> WebPush Server ? >>>> >>>> >>>> At the end of the day, UPS is just another 'driver', triggering the >>>> push ? >>>> >>>> >>>> Oh, I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch >>>> of UPS, while on this project, no ? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> If we will begin from UPS, from which branch should I work? And for >>>>> which release? >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>>>> -- >>>>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> 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 > -- 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 Wed, May 18, 2016 at 12:48 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big >>>> advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you >>>> as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to >>>> connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be >>>> nice. Makes you more independent. >>>> E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are >>>> connected to the public internet ;-) >>> >>> >>> Yes, good case! >>> But I think that it will not work with Chrome now: >>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API/Using_the_Push_... >>> Hope that it will be possible with Firefox, but I need to double check >>> it. >>> >> >> We could offer a little decorator, if the user explicitly wants a >> customer server :) >> >> We did that for simple push too: >> >> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/simplepush/aeroge... >> > > Great! > > So, I will begin to implement Chrome support for UPS, right? PR against > master? > sounds good to me! For HTTP/2 I think we may need to add instructions about adding the jetty-alpn-agent, for getting WF-10 up and running > Will we create JIRAs? Which labels should I use? > > Best regards, > Idel Pivnitskiy > -- > Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> > GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> > > On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 9:29 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org&gt; > wrote: > >> >> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:03 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big >>>> advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you >>>> as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to >>>> connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be >>>> nice. Makes you more independent. >>>> E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are >>>> connected to the public internet ;-) >>> >>> >>> Yes, good case! >>> But I think that it will not work with Chrome now: >>> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/Push_API/Using_the_Push_... >>> Hope that it will be possible with Firefox, but I need to double check >>> it. >>> >> >> We could offer a little decorator, if the user explicitly wants a >> customer server :) >> >> We did that for simple push too: >> >> https://github.com/aerogear/aerogear-js/blob/master/src/simplepush/aeroge... >> >> >> >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>> -- >>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>> >>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Matthias Wessendorf <matzew(a)apache.org >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >>>> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>> >>>>> Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing >>>>>> Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone >>>>>> WebPush Server ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think that we don't need our WebPush Server for Chrome/Firefox >>>>> support. Because it possible to send push messages to Chrome only >>>>> through GCM, using their API-key. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Right, but that goes through their service. I think one of the big >>>> advantages here is that with a truly open WebPush Server/Protocol/API, you >>>> as a company, can run your own, inpendent push network. Having support to >>>> connect to a custom WebPush server from the (standard?) JS API would be >>>> nice. Makes you more independent. >>>> >>>> E.g. imagine push on a private network, where not all devcies are >>>> connected to the public internet ;-) >>>> >>>> Not a high priority, but IMO worth to think about this >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch of >>>>>> UPS, while on this project, no ? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Think that it could be done at the end of the summer, if there are no >>>>> reasons to keep it. After or during the integration of WebPush Server to >>>>> UPS. I prefer after, like it was with Doclet and Miredot. >>>>> >>>> >>>> +1 makes sense to remove SimplePush, once WebPush is around. WebPush >>>> is the successor of SimplePush in general >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>>>> -- >>>>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 6:38 PM, Matthias Wessendorf < >>>>> matzew(a)apache.org&gt; wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 5:33 PM, Idel Pivnitskiy < >>>>>> idel.pivnitskiy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I've come back from the little vocation and ready for the work on >>>>>>> my GSoC project. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What will be our plan? >>>>>>> I may work according to my proposal: the first steps will be the >>>>>>> adding WebPush support for Chrome and Firefox directly to UPS (through >>>>>>> Google Cloud Messaging and Mozilla Push Service). >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I like that, but >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Another way: I may begin my work from WebPush Server. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Does it make sense starting with more focused examples? Showing >>>>>> Chrome/Firefox receiving message via the WebPush APIs from the standalone >>>>>> WebPush Server ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> At the end of the day, UPS is just another 'driver', triggering the >>>>>> push ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oh, I think we can also remove the SimplePush from the master branch >>>>>> of UPS, while on this project, no ? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If we will begin from UPS, from which branch should I work? And for >>>>>>> which release? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Idel Pivnitskiy >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Twitter: @idelpivnitskiy <https://twitter.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>>>> GitHub: @idelpivnitskiy <https://github.com/idelpivnitskiy> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> 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 >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> 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