8:28 a.m.
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
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
1:15 p.m.
Hey Luke,
ad) Variants
it would be ideal if we could just use the same variant!
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.
Cheers,
~ Lukas
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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
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
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
1:19 p.m.
On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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> 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
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
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
12:48 p.m.
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
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> wrote:
On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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> 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
>
> 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
> 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
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
2:32 p.m.
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&...
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 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> wrote:
On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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>
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
>
> 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
> 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
_______________________________________________
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
3:27 p.m.
Looks like there is a gcm logo but it is not really nice and I can not find it with a
decent resolution
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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&...
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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
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> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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> 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
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
5:38 a.m.
+1 to GCM logo
On Sep 3, 2014 5:28 PM, "Sébastien Blanc" <scm.blanc(a)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
[image: logo.png]
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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&...
On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 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> wrote:
>
>
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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>
> 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
>>
>> 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
>> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
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
9:20 a.m.
Hi,
Just bumping up this thread since
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 ?
Sebi
On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me> wrote:
+1 to GCM logo
On Sep 3, 2014 5:28 PM, "Sébastien Blanc" <scm.blanc(a)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
> [image: logo.png]
>
> Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> Le 3 sept. 2014 à 21:32, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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&...
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 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>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM, Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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>
>> 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
>>>
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
9:28 a.m.
On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc
<scm.blanc(a)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.
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
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
11:31 a.m.
Envoyé de mon iPhone
>
> >>
Sebi
> > >
>>> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Daniel Passos <daniel(a)passos.me>
wrote:
>>> +1 to GCM logo
>> >>>> On Sep 3, 2014
5:28 PM, "Sébastien Blanc" <scm.blanc(a)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> 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&...
>>>> >>>> >>>>>> On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 7:48 PM, Lucas
Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 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> wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:15 PM,
Lukáš Fryč <lukas.fryc(a)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> 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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>
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
>>>>>> >>>>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> >>>>>
_______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>> >>>
_______________________________________________
>>> 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
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
Le 2 févr. 2015 à 16:28, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
a écrit :
> On Feb 2, 2015, at 10:20 AM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Just bumping up this thread since
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 ?
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 ?
11:38 a.m.
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>
1:37 p.m.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 )
Maybe stupid and totally undoable but could we not use the current Android
infra in UPS also for Chrome Apps, is there any difference ? In this case
we could have a variant type "GCM" (just renaming the android type) , a
Chrome App Variant will then just be a of the type GCM like an Android
variant.
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
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
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
1:52 p.m.
On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 )
Maybe stupid and totally undoable but could we not use the current Android infra in UPS
also for Chrome Apps, is there any difference ? In this case we could have a variant type
"GCM" (just renaming the android type) , a Chrome App Variant will then just be
a of the type GCM like an Android variant.
I just ran a quick test using an android variant as a "chrome app”, and all worked
perfectly. was able to register with AeroGear.js to the UPS and get sent a push
notification to my chrome app.
no code changes needed on the UPS side of things!!
We might want to rename the Android Variant to GCM or something similar similar since the
network is now used for both types of applications.
This will probably also be the same thing when adding Safari Push notifications since it
also uses APN’s, although there are some slight differences
So, really, some one can use the new Chrome API stuff today with the UPS, they just need
to create an Android Variant
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
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
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
1:55 p.m.
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 27 août 2014 à 20:52, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com>
a écrit :
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 )
>
> Maybe stupid and totally undoable but could we not use the current Android infra in
UPS also for Chrome Apps, is there any difference ? In this case we could have a variant
type "GCM" (just renaming the android type) , a Chrome App Variant will then
just be a of the type GCM like an Android variant.
I just ran a quick test using an android variant as a "chrome app”, and all worked
perfectly. was able to register with AeroGear.js to the UPS and get sent a push
notification to my chrome app.
no code changes needed on the UPS side of things!!
We might want to rename the Android Variant to GCM or something similar similar since the
network is now used for both types of applications.
This will probably also be the same thing when adding Safari Push notifications since it
also uses APN’s, although there are some slight differences
So, really, some one can use the new Chrome API stuff today with the UPS, they just
need to create an Android Variant
Awesome ! Now we are even more unified and this
for free :)
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> 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
_______________________________________________
aerogear-dev mailing list
aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org
https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
1:58 p.m.
of course we will need to update the UI/examples so they know about it :)
but the user can differentiate between the 2 using the meta data then send back when
registering
On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:55 PM, Sébastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Envoyé de mon iPhone
Le 27 août 2014 à 20:52, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)redhat.com> a écrit :
>
> On Aug 27, 2014, at 2:37 PM, Sebastien Blanc <scm.blanc(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 3:28 PM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui(a)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 )
>>
>> Maybe stupid and totally undoable but could we not use the current Android infra
in UPS also for Chrome Apps, is there any difference ? In this case we could have a
variant type "GCM" (just renaming the android type) , a Chrome App Variant will
then just be a of the type GCM like an Android variant.
>
> I just ran a quick test using an android variant as a "chrome app”, and all
worked perfectly. was able to register with AeroGear.js to the UPS and get sent a push
notification to my chrome app.
>
> no code changes needed on the UPS side of things!!
>
>
> We might want to rename the Android Variant to GCM or something similar similar since
the network is now used for both types of applications.
>
> This will probably also be the same thing when adding Safari Push notifications since
it also uses APN’s, although there are some slight differences
>
>
> So, really, some one can use the new Chrome API stuff today with the UPS, they just
need to create an Android Variant
Awesome ! Now we are even more unified and this for free :)
>
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
>> 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
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
2972
days inactive
3131
days old
14 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Daniel Passos -
Lucas Holmquist -
Lukáš Fryč -
Sebastien Blanc -
Sébastien Blanc